Delhi State Consumer Commission Holds Parkwood Developers Liable For Delay In Flat Possession; Orders Refund

Facts of the case:

The complainant, Mr. Brijesh Singh, booked a residential unit in the project Parkwood Glade developed by M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd., through an allotment letter dated 22.07.2015. A Flat Buyer Agreement executed on the same day fixed the total price at ₹65,16,625 and required the developer to hand over possession by 30.06.2017.

The complainant paid ₹18,50,000 as per the payment schedule. On the assurance of the developer that it would bear all EMIs until possession, the complainant availed a housing loan of ₹58,00,000 from LIC Housing Finance Ltd., out of which ₹47,72,781 was disbursed directly to the developer. A written MoU confirmed the developer's obligation to pay EMIs until possession was delivered.

The developer, however, paid EMIs only for a short period and then abruptly stopped, despite not completing construction or handing over possession. LIC Housing Finance thereafter began demanding EMIs from the complainant, placing him under severe financial stress. Despite repeated requests, the developer continued to delay the project and failed to fulfil its contractual obligations.

Aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Contentions of the Complainant

The complainant argued that the developer clearly indulged in deficiency of service by failing to honour its commitments and by giving false assurances regarding project progress and EMI payments. He contended that once the developer undertook to pay EMIs until possession, stopping payments midway amounted to breach of contract and unfair trade practice.
He further submitted that the prolonged delay deprived him of the benefit of his hard-earned money and exposed him to loan recovery actions and credit score damage. Since the developer neither delivered the unit nor complied with the agreement and MoU, he sought a full refund, clearance of the outstanding loan, compensation, and litigation costs.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The Opposite Party, despite service of notice, did not appear or file its written statement. The Commission, therefore, closed its right to file the written statement and proceeded on the basis that the complainant's averments remained unrebutted

Observation and Decision of the Commission:

The Commission noted that the developer was contractually required to hand over possession by 30.06.2017 but failed to do so, amounting to deficiency in service.
The Commission also noted that the developer had undertaken to pay the EMIs until possession but stopped midway, causing financial hardship. Relying on settled legal principles that a homebuyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely, the Commission held the developer liable for breach and unfair conduct.

The Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to refund ₹18,50,000 with 6% interest(enhanced to 9% if not paid by 16.12.2025). It also ordered the developer to clear the complainant's entire outstanding loan with LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Additionally, the Commission awarded ₹1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹50,000 as litigation costs, and disposed of all pending applications.

Counsel for the Complainant: Mr. Nitin Goel

Case No.: CC. NO. 211/2022

Case Title: MR. BRIJESH SINGH VS. M/S PARKWOOD DEVELOPERS LTD.

Click Here To Read/Download The Order