MahaRERA Orders Lodha Group to Refund Rs 6.65 Lakh to Flat Buyer
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ordered Macrotech Developers Ltd (Lodha Group) to refund ₹6.65 lakh to a non-resident Indian couple after their home loan application was rejected.
MahareraLodha GroupHome LoanReal EstateReraReal Estate MaharashtraJun 28, 2025
The order, delivered by MahaRERA Member II Ravindra Deshpande on June 10, 2025, came in response to Complaint No. CC006000000221101, filed by Vaibhav Kishor Ambukar and Seema Vaibhav Ambukar, who had booked Flat No. 1503 in “Lodha Mulund Project Tower 1” for a consideration of ₹2.26 crore.
The Dispute: Booking, Loan Rejection, and Denied Refund
The complainants, who are NRIs based in Russia, paid a total of ₹7 lakh in two instalments — ₹1 lakh in September 2021 and ₹6 lakh in October 2021 — as a booking amount for the flat. The payment was made with a clear condition that the purchase would proceed only if the couple secured a home loan.
However, after facing procedural challenges due to their overseas employment and the bank’s demand for documents like a Russian Credit Bureau report and residence proof, their home loan application was rejected in November 2021. The complainants then informed Lodha and requested a cancellation and refund.
Despite repeated follow-ups via email, calls, and messages, Lodha allegedly refused to refund the booking amount, citing Clause 3.5 of the application form, which allows the company to forfeit the booking amount or up to 10% of the total consideration in the event of cancellation.
Lodha’s Defence: Terms Were Clear and Binding
Lodha’s legal counsel argued that the complainants signed the application form voluntarily on November 7, 2021, after being made aware of the terms and conditions. The company asserted that they were under no obligation to assist in securing a home loan and that the cancellation was initiated solely by the complainants. Lodha claimed it had incurred costs and lost sales opportunities due to the commitment to sell the unit.
The company also cited legal precedents such as Karun Malhotra v/s Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and Jaideep Harpalani v/s Mascot Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., where up to 10% forfeiture was upheld as reasonable compensation.
Buyers’ Argument: One-Sided and Unfair Contract
The complainants’ counsel countered this by highlighting the lack of equal bargaining power and the absence of a formal sale agreement. They argued that the clauses in the booking form were one-sided, unconscionable, and not explained in detail. They cited the Supreme Court ruling in Pioneer Urban Land v. Govindan Raghavan (2019), which held that courts should not enforce unfair or oppressive contract terms in consumer transactions where the buyer had no real choice.
Further, the complainants pointed out that the signed application form had inconsistencies — some pages bore only one signature, others both, and there were no dates or signatures from Lodha’s sales team. This raised doubts about the procedural integrity of the booking process.
MahaRERA’s Observations and Ruling
After carefully examining the documents and hearing both sides, MahaRERA ruled in favour of the buyers. The authority noted that:
- The Application Form was signed after the booking amount was already paid, suggesting the terms were not agreed upon beforehand.
- The form lacked signatures and dates on several pages, and the absence of remarks confirming that the terms were explained made it procedurally weak.
- The complainants sought cancellation within nine days of signing the form due to a genuine financial hardship, not to exploit the system.
- The forfeiture clause (Clause 3.5) was deemed one-sided, punitive, and contrary to the spirit of the RERA Act, which seeks to protect homebuyers from exploitative practices.
Quoting the rationale of consumer protection and equitable dealings, the authority declared that “forfeiture of the amount is improper” in this case and directed the developer to refund the full amount.
Final Order Highlights
- Lodha (Macrotech Developers Ltd) must refund ₹6.65 lakh to the complainants by July 15, 2025.
- If payment is delayed, interest at 2% above SBI’s highest MCLR will apply from July 16, 2025, until the amount is paid.
- Lodha must also pay ₹20,000 towards legal costs to the complainants.
Implications and Significance
This order sets a precedent for how booking cancellations — especially those resulting from unforeseeable financial hardships — should be handled by developers under RERA. It also challenges the legitimacy of one-sided clauses in standard real estate contracts that allow developers to withhold large sums without a formal agreement in place. It reinforces the principle that oral assurances given at the time of booking — especially when relied upon by buyers — carry weight, and that companies cannot unfairly penalize customers for circumstances beyond their control.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is MahaRERA?
MahaRERA stands for the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, a regulatory body established under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) to protect the rights of homebuyers and ensure transparency in the real estate sector.
Why did the non-resident Indian couple seek a refund?
The non-resident Indian couple sought a refund after their home loan application was rejected due to procedural challenges related to their overseas employment and the bank’s demand for specific documents.
What was Lodha Group’s argument against the refund?
Lodha Group argued that the complainants signed the application form voluntarily and were aware of the terms and conditions, including the forfeiture clause, and that they were under no obligation to assist in securing a home loan.
What did MahaRERA rule in this case?
MahaRERA ruled in favour of the buyers, ordering Lodha Group to refund ₹6.65 lakh, citing procedural weaknesses in the booking form and the one-sided nature of the forfeiture clause.
What are the implications of this ruling?
This ruling sets a precedent for handling booking cancellations due to unforeseeable financial hardships and challenges the legitimacy of one-sided clauses in real estate contracts, reinforcing consumer protection principles.
Related News Articles
ITAT Slams AO for Violating Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act
The Mumbai ITAT held that the AO has no jurisdiction to make any adjustment in the final assessment order passed under Section 143(3) before receiving any response from the assessee.
IAS Officer Puja Khedkar Embroiled in Controversy: Pune Municipal Corporation Cracks Down on Illegal Encroachment
Trainee IAS officer Puja Khedkar faces illegal encroachment notice at her home amidst allegations of misusing her position during probationary period
Short-Term Trading Opportunities: Tech and Real Estate Stocks to Watch
The market is witnessing a breakout in multiple sectors, with Tata Tech showing signs of trend reversal and Century Textiles poised for a 7% upmove.
Nifty's Monday Opening: Anticipating a Recovery After a 700-Point Drop
Following a significant drop of 700 points this week, investors are speculating how the Nifty will open on Monday. Will there be a recovery in sight, or will the market continue its downward trend?
Maharashtra Government Likely to Increase Ready Reckoner Rates by 10%; Real Estate Sector Urges Caution
The Maharashtra government is considering a 10% hike in the Ready Reckoner (RR) rate, the state’s benchmark for property valuation. Real estate stakeholders are raising concerns over the potential impact on housing affordability and market dynamics.
Real Estate Stocks Soar 13% Post Q3 Revenue Growth of 321% - A Breakdown
The real estate sector has seen a significant boost with GeeCee Ventures Ltd reporting a 321% year-over-year revenue growth in the third quarter. This has led to a remarkable 13% increase in the company's stock, currently trading at Rs 444.50 per share, w