Delhi State Commission Holds Parsvanath Developers Liable For Delay In Delivery Of Flat

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President and Pinki, Judicial Member has held Parsvanath Developers liable for deficiency in service for delay in delivery of flat to the complainants. The builders agreed to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 and hand over the delayed possession. Brief facts: The complainants had booked a 3-bedroom residential flat with Parvanath Developers Ltd. ('builder') for a total sale consideration of Rs. 27,68,150/-. A flat-buyer agreement was executed between the complainants and the builder on 19.04.2007 as per which possession was to be delivered within 30 months with a grace period of 6 months from date of construction. As per the complainants, despite payment of Rs. 26,93,205/-, no possession has been handed over to them till date. It was stated that the builder further made demands for various other costs such as an increase of 120 sq. ft area, VAT, parking charges. Aggrieved by the acts of the builder, the complainants filed a complaint before the State Commission praying for appropriate compensation. Submissions of builder: The builder submitted that the State Commission at Delhi does not have the power to decide the complaint. It was also submitted that the complaint is non-maintainable and complicated questions of law and fact are involved which should be resolved by an appropriate court. The builder argued that there was intentional default and the delay happened due to global recession. Observations of the bench: On the issue of jurisdiction, the bench placed reliance on Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and held that since the branch office of the builder is situated at Baramkhamba Road, New Delhi, the State Commission at Delhi will have the power to decide the complaint. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rohit Srivastava vs Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. (2017). On the question of maintainability of the complaint, the bench observed that it is only due to the failure to hand over possession of the flat, the present complaint has been filed. Therefore, the argument of the developer that the complaint involves disputed questions of fact and law was rejected and it was held that the complaint is maintainable. With respect to deficiency in service, the bench relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Arifur Rahman vs DLF Southern Homes (2020) wherein it was held that failure to comply with contractual obligations to provide flat to the purchaser as per the contract amounts to deficiency in service. The bench also relied on clause 10 of the Flat Buyer Agreement as per which possession was to be delivered within 30 months from date of construction along with a grace period of 6 months. Thus, the builder was held liable for failure to deliver possession within the stipulated period. However the builder agreed to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- and to offer the delayed possession to the complainants. Hence, the complaint was allowed with the following reliefs: Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation for delay Rs. 1,00,000 as costs for mental agony and harassment Rs. 50,000 as litigation costs Case Title: Nitin Bansal vs Pasvanath Developers Case Number: Complaint No. 782 /2016 Advocate for complainants: Tushant Deep Garg Advocate for Opposite Party: T.P Chauhan and Tanvi Garg Date of Decision: 02.07.2025Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Delhi State Commission Holds Parsvanath Developers Liable For Delay In Delivery Of Flat

Aakanksha Bajoria

Tags