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
India's Rise to Realty Prominence: A Billion-Dollar Boom
India is accelerating to become the real estate capital of Asia, with a total valuation of Rs 14.2 trillion among the top 100 realty companies.
Maharashtra Cabinet Renames Pune Airport After Sant Tukaram Maharaj
The Maharashtra Cabinet has approved a proposal to rename Pune airport after the 17th-century Warkari saint and poet, Sant Tukaram Maharaj.
The Downfall of Real Estate Moguls: Alexander Brothers Arrested in Miami
In a shocking turn of events, the renowned real estate moguls, the Alexander Brothers, were recently arrested in Miami. This news has sent ripples through the business community, leaving many to wonder what led to their downfall.
Luxury Homes, Toxic Air: The Urban Pollution Paradox in India
Nithin Kamath, a prominent real estate analyst, highlights the growing concern of urban pollution in major Indian cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Bengaluru. Despite seeing a surge in luxury real estate, these cities struggle with alarming levels of air pol
Tragic Incident: Two Workers Killed, One Injured as Slab Collapses in Chikhla Mines
A devastating slab collapse in the Chikhla mines of Manganese Ore (India) has resulted in the death of two workers and left one injured. The incident has raised serious concerns about safety protocols in the mining industry.
Women Home Buyers Witness 14% Surge in 2024: Report
A recent report by Square Yards, titled 'Key Holders of Change - Women Driving Real Estate Growth and Transformation,' reveals a significant 14% increase in women homebuyers in 2024.