Four homebuyers paid Rs 2.08 crore each for flats with promised pool, gym, spa and sports facilities; Karnataka RERA orders Rs 10 lakh compensation after many amenities were not delivered
A builder promises several amenities in a housing project, but fails to deliver. What happens after that? A Karnataka RERA ruling in this context assumes importance.
A reputed builder has been asked to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to four homebuyers after a joint inspection and photographs showed that several amenities promised in the project, including a senior citizen park, open gym, spa, amphitheatre and sports facilities, had not been delivered.
The authority held that showcasing these facilities in brochures and agreements but failing to provide them amounted to misrepresentation, despite the buyers having signed the sale deeds.
What the case is aboutThe order followed a complaint filed by four homebuyers. Their housing project is situated in Bangalore North. The buyers had purchased flats in the project for Rs 2.08 crore each and executed the sale deeds in 2022. At the time of purchase, the builder had committed to providing a range of amenities. However, the promised facilities were not constructed.
The Karnataka RERA tribunal in Bangalore has directed the to pay Rs 10 lakh in compensation to four homebuyers after photographic evidence established that several amenities promised to them had not been provided. These included a senior citizen park, open gym, spa, open amphitheatre, badminton court and other facilities.
On September 4, 2026, the Karnataka RERA authority held that the builder had presented the buyers with colourful dreams by featuring the promised amenities in the project brochure, allotment letters and agreements.
The authority observed that the failure to deliver those commitments, even if it was not intentional, amounted to misrepresentation. K-RERA consequently ordered the builder to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation to the four homebuyers.
Karnataka RERA discussionSmt Maheshwari S Hiremath, adjudicating officer of Karnataka RERA, heard the case.
BIAAPA has not yet released the final order, so builder has no obligation to construct the club house
Under Clause 12.1 of the sale agreement, the builder is required to complete the club house within 18 months from the date on which BIAAPA issues the site release order. In this case, however, BIAAPA has issued only a partial release order.
Karnataka RERA therefore held that the builder cannot, at this stage, be held responsible for failing to hand over a fully completed club house.
Joint inspection photographs show several amenities remain incomplete
A joint inspection of the project was conducted by the homebuyers and the builder on May 14, 2026, in accordance with the court's order. The inspection was accompanied by several photographs documenting the condition of the premises.
Although the builder's representatives attended the inspection, they did not sign the joint inspection report. However, the colour photographs taken during the inspection established their presence at the project premises.
Karnataka RERA noted that purchasing a home is generally a long-held aspiration for buyers, who may put their lifetime savings into the purchase and take loans that can take years to repay. Against this backdrop, the authority said a builder has a responsibility to honour that aspiration rather than leave homebuyers running from pillar to post.
The authority further referred to Section 12 of the RERA Act , under which a builder is responsible for the veracity of representations made in an advertisement or prospectus. Accordingly, the builder is bound to provide the amenities promised in the advertisement or prospectus for the particular project.
In the present case, although the builder executed the sale deed in 2022, the amenities that had been promised to the buyers had still not been fully provided.
Karnataka RERA observed: “Mere execution of a sale deed in favour of the allottee is not sufficient without completion of the project by providing all amenities /facilities as agreed.”
The authority said the builder is required to complete the project in all respects, particularly since the homebuyers had pointed out that several amenities remained incomplete or had not been constructed.
The authority also noted several other deficiencies at the project. These included portions of the compound wall that were missing, a borewell that had been dug in a private area, and inadequate maintenance of the STP and WTP, which was resulting in bad smells, among other issues.
The coloured photographs taken during the joint inspection documented these conditions and were captured in the presence of the builder's representative while the inspection report was being prepared.
Karnataka RERA observed: “Perused all colored photographs which goes to show that several amenities are incomplete such as compound wall, SBR tanks 1 and 2, club house, sewage collection tank, STP and WTP plant room, gate at the entrance, no salt or brine used for water treatment, STP chambers are open, etc.”
At the same time, the photographs indicated that some facilities, including the children's play area, park and yoga deck, had been completed.
Based on its findings, the K-RERA authority directed the builder to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation within 60 days. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the builder will also be required to pay interest on the compensation.
How did the homebuyers win?Asha Kiran Sharma, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, told ET that the Karnataka RERA order serves as an important reminder that developers cannot rely on contractual wording to escape responsibility when promised facilities are not delivered.
Sharma said the significant aspect of the case was that the builder attempted to shift the focus towards documentation rather than the actual facilities that formed part of the homebuyers' purchase. According to her, the promised pool, gym, spa and other amenities were not constructed, a fact established during a joint inspection conducted in May 2026.
The joint inspection report, which was carried out under the direction of K-RERA, further recorded that the project did not have a children's play area, badminton or tennis court or open gym. It also found that the clubhouse did not have the promised pool, spa, guest rooms and indoor games area.
The builder's own staff attended the inspection and were also visible in the photographs taken during the exercise, leaving little scope for a claim that the inspection findings were inaccurate.
Sharma said the ruling also carries an important message for builders. A developer cannot prepare a sale deed declaring its obligations to be fulfilled and later rely on that same document to defend itself against claims concerning facilities it had promised. The Karnataka RERA Authority noted that such documents are one-sided instruments prepared entirely by the builder, while buyers frequently have little practical choice other than signing them.
For homebuyers, Sharma said the order provides reassurance that an honest and genuine error, such as mentioning an incorrect project registration number, will not by itself defeat an otherwise legitimate complaint. What matters is that the project and the amenities that were promised can be clearly established from the available record.
Sharma says: "At the end of the day, people don't pour their life savings and years of loan repayments into a home just to get a bare plot with a signature on a deed. They're buying into a lifestyle that was promised to them in a brochure, and this order says quite plainly that promoters have to be held to that promise, not just to the transaction on paper."
A reputed builder has been asked to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to four homebuyers after a joint inspection and photographs showed that several amenities promised in the project, including a senior citizen park, open gym, spa, amphitheatre and sports facilities, had not been delivered.
The authority held that showcasing these facilities in brochures and agreements but failing to provide them amounted to misrepresentation, despite the buyers having signed the sale deeds.
What the case is aboutThe order followed a complaint filed by four homebuyers. Their housing project is situated in Bangalore North. The buyers had purchased flats in the project for Rs 2.08 crore each and executed the sale deeds in 2022. At the time of purchase, the builder had committed to providing a range of amenities. However, the promised facilities were not constructed.
The Karnataka RERA tribunal in Bangalore has directed the to pay Rs 10 lakh in compensation to four homebuyers after photographic evidence established that several amenities promised to them had not been provided. These included a senior citizen park, open gym, spa, open amphitheatre, badminton court and other facilities.
On September 4, 2026, the Karnataka RERA authority held that the builder had presented the buyers with colourful dreams by featuring the promised amenities in the project brochure, allotment letters and agreements.
The authority observed that the failure to deliver those commitments, even if it was not intentional, amounted to misrepresentation. K-RERA consequently ordered the builder to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation to the four homebuyers.
Karnataka RERA discussionSmt Maheshwari S Hiremath, adjudicating officer of Karnataka RERA, heard the case.
BIAAPA has not yet released the final order, so builder has no obligation to construct the club house
Under Clause 12.1 of the sale agreement, the builder is required to complete the club house within 18 months from the date on which BIAAPA issues the site release order. In this case, however, BIAAPA has issued only a partial release order.
Karnataka RERA therefore held that the builder cannot, at this stage, be held responsible for failing to hand over a fully completed club house.
Joint inspection photographs show several amenities remain incomplete
A joint inspection of the project was conducted by the homebuyers and the builder on May 14, 2026, in accordance with the court's order. The inspection was accompanied by several photographs documenting the condition of the premises.
Although the builder's representatives attended the inspection, they did not sign the joint inspection report. However, the colour photographs taken during the inspection established their presence at the project premises.
Karnataka RERA noted that purchasing a home is generally a long-held aspiration for buyers, who may put their lifetime savings into the purchase and take loans that can take years to repay. Against this backdrop, the authority said a builder has a responsibility to honour that aspiration rather than leave homebuyers running from pillar to post.
The authority further referred to Section 12 of the RERA Act , under which a builder is responsible for the veracity of representations made in an advertisement or prospectus. Accordingly, the builder is bound to provide the amenities promised in the advertisement or prospectus for the particular project.
In the present case, although the builder executed the sale deed in 2022, the amenities that had been promised to the buyers had still not been fully provided.
Karnataka RERA observed: “Mere execution of a sale deed in favour of the allottee is not sufficient without completion of the project by providing all amenities /facilities as agreed.”
The authority said the builder is required to complete the project in all respects, particularly since the homebuyers had pointed out that several amenities remained incomplete or had not been constructed.
The authority also noted several other deficiencies at the project. These included portions of the compound wall that were missing, a borewell that had been dug in a private area, and inadequate maintenance of the STP and WTP, which was resulting in bad smells, among other issues.
The coloured photographs taken during the joint inspection documented these conditions and were captured in the presence of the builder's representative while the inspection report was being prepared.
Karnataka RERA observed: “Perused all colored photographs which goes to show that several amenities are incomplete such as compound wall, SBR tanks 1 and 2, club house, sewage collection tank, STP and WTP plant room, gate at the entrance, no salt or brine used for water treatment, STP chambers are open, etc.”
At the same time, the photographs indicated that some facilities, including the children's play area, park and yoga deck, had been completed.
Based on its findings, the K-RERA authority directed the builder to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation within 60 days. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the builder will also be required to pay interest on the compensation.
How did the homebuyers win?Asha Kiran Sharma, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, told ET that the Karnataka RERA order serves as an important reminder that developers cannot rely on contractual wording to escape responsibility when promised facilities are not delivered.
Sharma said the significant aspect of the case was that the builder attempted to shift the focus towards documentation rather than the actual facilities that formed part of the homebuyers' purchase. According to her, the promised pool, gym, spa and other amenities were not constructed, a fact established during a joint inspection conducted in May 2026.
The joint inspection report, which was carried out under the direction of K-RERA, further recorded that the project did not have a children's play area, badminton or tennis court or open gym. It also found that the clubhouse did not have the promised pool, spa, guest rooms and indoor games area.
The builder's own staff attended the inspection and were also visible in the photographs taken during the exercise, leaving little scope for a claim that the inspection findings were inaccurate.
Sharma said the ruling also carries an important message for builders. A developer cannot prepare a sale deed declaring its obligations to be fulfilled and later rely on that same document to defend itself against claims concerning facilities it had promised. The Karnataka RERA Authority noted that such documents are one-sided instruments prepared entirely by the builder, while buyers frequently have little practical choice other than signing them.
For homebuyers, Sharma said the order provides reassurance that an honest and genuine error, such as mentioning an incorrect project registration number, will not by itself defeat an otherwise legitimate complaint. What matters is that the project and the amenities that were promised can be clearly established from the available record.
Sharma says: "At the end of the day, people don't pour their life savings and years of loan repayments into a home just to get a bare plot with a signature on a deed. They're buying into a lifestyle that was promised to them in a brochure, and this order says quite plainly that promoters have to be held to that promise, not just to the transaction on paper."
Next Story