Delhi State Commission Holds Parsvnath Liable For Non-Delivery Of Flat; Orders Refund And Compensation

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has held Parsvnath Developers Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service for failing to allot and hand over possession of a residential apartment despite receiving ₹20,00,000 from the complainants. The Commission directed the developer to refund the entire amount with applicable interest and further awarded ₹1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony along with ₹50,000 towards litigation costs. Brief Facts of the Case: The complainants, Mr. Manoj Khanna and Mr. Vijay Kumar Khanna, were attracted by advertisements issued by Parsvnath Developers Ltd. regarding a proposed Future Group Housing Complex Project at Sarai Rohilla, Kishanganj, New Delhi. Interested in purchasing a residential apartment for personal use, they paid four cheques of ₹5,00,000 each, totalling ₹20,00,000, as advance payment in 2011. The developer assured the complainants that the possession of the apartment would be delivered within three years, i.e., by 2014. However, despite repeated reminders, visits, and requests for documents such as government sanctions and project details, the opposite party neither provided any information nor offered possession. Over several years, the complainants continued pursuing the matter, but the developer kept extending deadlines without any satisfactory explanation. Eventually, the complainants issued a legal notice dated 02.03.2016 seeking a refund of the paid amount, but the notice went unanswered. With no progress on allotment or possession, the complainants approached the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Contentions of the Opposite Party: The opposite party contested the complaint primarily on the ground that the complainants were not “consumers” under the Consumer Protection Act, alleging that the apartment was booked for commercial purposes with an intention to earn profit. It was further contended that the complaint was not maintainable as it involved complicated questions of fact and law requiring detailed examination and cross-examination of witnesses—issues which, according to the opposite party, could not be adjudicated in a summary consumer proceeding. Observations & Decision: The Commission observed that the complainants had paid ₹20,00,000 for the apartment, and the opposite party failed to allot or hand over possession. The objection that the complainants were not “consumers” was rejected because no evidence was produced to show the booking was for commercial purposes. The Commission also held that the failure to deliver possession is a continuous cause of action, making the complaint within limitation. It further found that the dispute did not involve complicated facts requiring a civil court, and the opposite party's own offer to refund the amount during proceedings showed clear deficiency in service.The Commission held the opposite party guilty of deficiency in service and directed it to refund ₹20,00,000 to the complainants. The refund must carry 6% interest up to 24.11.2025 if paid by 24.01.2026, failing which interest will be 9% till realization.Additionally, the opposite party must pay ₹1,00,000 for mental agony and ₹50,000 as litigation costs. The complaint was accordingly allowed. Case Title: Mr. Manoj Khanna vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. Case No.: CC/441/2016 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Delhi State Commission Holds Parsvnath Liable For Non-Delivery Of Flat; Orders Refund And Compensation

Praveen Mishra

Tags