30. ….Relying on the provisions of Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which defines the term “unfair trade practice”, this Court held that the contractual terms which are ex facie one-sided, unfair and unreasonable would constitute unfair trade practice as per the aforesaid definition of “unfair trade practice”.

31. Now, Parliament in 2019 has enacted the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which has specifically provided a definition for “unfair contract”…..

……

32. No doubt that the aforesaid definition would be applicable after the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into effect, however, even prior to that while considering the term “unfair trade practice”, this Court has found that such one-sided Agreements, as in the present case, would be covered by the definition of term “unfair trade practice”.

39. Relying on the aforesaid observations of this Court, the NCDRC, in a series of cases right from the year 2015, has held that 10% of the BSP is a reasonable amount which is liable to be forfeited as earnest money. The NCDRC has initially taken this view in the case of DLF Ltd. v. Bhagwanti Narula (supra). The said view has been followed subsequently in various judgments of the NCDRC. We see no reason to upset the view consistently taken by the NCDRC based on the judgment of this Court in the case of Maula Bux (supra).