Crematorium View from Balcony: 800 Homebuyers Allegedly Misled as Flat Prices Touch ₹2.4 Crore
Gurugram 2.4Cr Worth Flat’s Balconies Face Crematorium: 800 Buyers Alleged Been Duped by Builder; Move NCDRC
Homebuyers allege project layout was altered after payments; commission issues notice to builder
Nearly 800 homebuyers in Gurugram have approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging they were misled by a builder after paying over 90% of the cost of flats priced between ₹1.1 crore and ₹2.4 crore.
The dispute relates to the Smart World project by M3M Builder in Sector 61, Gurugram. Buyers claim that they were initially shown an integrated gated township named “Orchard”. However, after payments were made, the project was allegedly divided into separate parcels called “Green” and “Avenue”, separated by public roads.
According to the complainants, several flats now face a crematorium, which was not disclosed at the time of booking. In addition, the promised main road entry gate is reportedly missing.
Buyers have also raised concerns over what they describe as “flawed” and “unplanned” internal roads. Due to a central revenue road cutting through the land, some residential blocks require a connecting bridge for access.
The matter was heard by the NCDRC on February 13. The commission has issued a notice to the builder and stayed any coercive action against the homebuyers.
To attract buyers, the developer had offered pre-EMI schemes, rental guarantees and subsidy plans. Under a tripartite agreement between buyers, banks and the builder, the builder was to pay EMIs until possession of the flats. For a home loan of around ₹1 crore, the monthly EMI is estimated at approximately ₹75,000.
However, buyers allege that only about 10% of the construction has been completed, while the financial burden has effectively shifted onto them.
After months of communication attempts through emails, calls and meetings with company officials failed to yield a resolution, the affected homebuyers escalated the matter to the consumer commission.
The case now awaits further proceedings before the NCDRC.
