The case revolves around a complaint filed by a real estate development firm against a builder regarding the allotment of a residential flat in the project "Omkar 1973 Worli." On September 22, 2015, the firm booked the flat for one of its directors, paying an initial booking amount of Rs. 51 lakh, followed by additional payments totaling Rs. 6.79 crore. The flat was formally allotted in June 2016, with a possession date set for December 31, 2018.

However, complications arose when the builder unexpectedly advanced the possession date to the first quarter of 2017, prompting the respondent to seek financing. During this process, they discovered that the flat had already been allocated to another individual, Mr. Nakul Arya. As a result, the firm declined to take possession and refused to pay the remaining balance. Subsequently, the builder canceled the allotment and forfeited the deposits.

In response, the firm approached the NCDRC, arguing that the builder's actions constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The builder countered that the firm, being a real estate company, did not qualify as a consumer under the Act since the purchase was ostensibly for commercial purposes.

The NCDRC faced two primary questions: whether the complaint was maintainable and whether the builder had indeed acted in good faith or was guilty of unfair practices. The commission ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, recognizing them as a consumer despite their corporate status, citing relevant precedents from previous rulings.

The NCDRC determined that the flat was purchased for the personal use of the director and his family, not for commercial gain. The ruling referenced earlier Supreme Court judgments that clarified the definition of a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Act, emphasizing that the purpose of the purchase—primarily for personal use—was critical in establishing consumer status.

Furthermore, the NCDRC highlighted the builder's mishandling of the allotment process, noting that the double allocation issue should have been resolved before insisting on payment or terminating the allotment. The commission found the builder's actions to be both unjustified and a breach of consumer rights, resulting in a direction to refund the total amount deposited along with interest.

The NCDRC's decision underscores the importance of protecting consumer rights in the real estate sector, establishing that corporate entities can also be consumers when transactions are for personal rather than commercial purposes. The ruling mandates a refund of over Rs. 7 crore to the complainant, reinforcing the obligation of builders to uphold fair practices and transparency.

As real estate transactions often involve significant sums and complex legalities, this case serves as a vital reminder for consumers to understand their rights and for developers to adhere to ethical standards in their business dealings. The ruling not only provides clarity on consumer definitions but also sets a precedent for future disputes in the housing market.