Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.23 – Deficiency of service – Appellant-Builder launched a residential project and respondentflat purchaser entered into an Apartment Buyer’s agreement to purchase an apartment in the said project for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,83,25,280/- – As per agreement, the appellant was to apply for the occupancy certificate within 39 months from the date of excavation with grace period of 180 days – However, Appellant-builder failed to apply for occupancy certificate as per agreement – Consumer complaint filed before the National Commission – During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant obtained the occupancy certificate and pleaded National Commission to direct the respondent to take possession of the flat – However, the respondent refused to take possession as there was an inordinate delay of almost 3 years – National Commission allowed the consumer complaint and held that respondent could not be compelled to take possession at such belated stage – Further, appellant was directed to refund Rs.4,48,43,026 i.e. the amount deposited by the respondent along with interest @ 10.7% S.I. p.a. towards compensation – On appeal, held: The respondent-flat purchaser made out a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the appellant-builder – Appellant failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the occupancy certificate and offering possession of the flat to the respondent within the time stipulated in the agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter – Respondent was justified in terminating the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement by filing the Consumer Complaint, and cannot be compelled to accept the possession whenever it is offered by the Builder – Respondent was legally entitled to seek refund of the money deposited by him along with appropriate compensation – Respondent had to also service a loan that he had obtained for purchasing the flat by paying interest @10% to the Bank – In the circumstances, no illegality in the impugned order passed by the National Commission – Haryana Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 2017 – r.15. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(r) – Unfair and unreasonable apartment buyer’s agreement – Held: A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder – The contractual terms of the Buyer’s Agreement in the instant case was ex-facie one-sided, unfair and unreasonable – The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per s.2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder.