Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 181

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Parsvnath Developers Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mohit Khirbat – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5289 of 2022
with
Parsvnath Developers Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
GP. Capt. Suman Chopra (Dead) Through Lrs. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5290 of 2022
With
Parsvnath Hessa Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Aman Chawla And Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11047 of 2025
Decided On : 20-02-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh P., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Parmanand Yadav, Adv. Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, AOR Ms. Ankita Singh, Adv. Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Adv. Mr. Anchit Sripat, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR

Consumer service agreements may not curtail statutory jurisdiction of consumer forums, which can award compensation beyond stipulated contractual terms if deemed unfair.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 14 - Delay in construction of residential flats - The NCDRC directed the developer to complete construction and hand over possession to the buyers on stipulated dates with provisions for compensation at 8% per annum for delayed possession and litigation costs. (Paras 2, 3, and 8)

(B) Contractual Obligations - The developer contended that clauses in the Flat Buyer Agreement exempted them from delay liabilities; however, the court emphasized that statutory powers under the Act cannot be curtailed by unilateral contractual terms. (Paras 9-10, 12-13)

Facts of the case:
Consumers booked apartments in a project but faced delays in delivery despite paying almost the entire sale consideration. The developer cited various factors including financial resources as reasons for the delays.

Findings of Court:
NCDRC found the developer liable for failure to deliver timely possession and directed them to remedy the situation with interest and costs.

Issues: Whether the NCDRC exceeded its jurisdiction concerning contractual terms and the developer's liability for delay.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the NCDRC's jurisdiction to award compensation for delay under the Act, irrespective of the restrictive contractual provisions, underscoring that such terms cannot bind consumers and may be deemed unfair practices.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

1. These three appeals arise out of separate orders dated 30.07.2018, 30.07.2018, and 21.11.2019 respectively passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi¹[For short, “NCDRC”] in Consumer Complaint Nos. 827 of 2017, 828 of 2017 and 2355 of 2017.

2. By the impugned orders, the NCDRC directed the appellant to complete construction of the flats and hand over possession to the respondents in these appeals on or before 31.03.2019, 31.03.2019 and 31.03.2020 respectively, after obtaining the requisite Occupancy Certificate from the competent authorities. The appellant was further directed to pay compensation by way of simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 13.11.2014, 14.12.2013 and 20.08.2015 respectively till the actual delivery of possession.

2.1. The NCDRC also directed the appellant to pay/credit rebate for the period from 01.09.2013 to 12.11.2014 at the same rate at which such rebate had earlier been credited to the account of the respondent Dr. Mohit Khirbat, and to pay litigation costs of Rs.25,000/- to the respondents in each case. Insofar as the respondents in C.A. No. 11047/2025 are concerned, the NCDRC restrained the appellant from withdrawing any rebate already credited to the account of the respondents. It was further directed that any increase in stamp duty occurring after 12.11.2014, 13.12.2013 and 20.08.2015 respectively shall be borne by the appellant.

2.2. Additionally, the NCDRC permitted inspection of the flats by the appellant prior to offering possession, with liberty to take measurements along with its architect. In the event of any excess area being found, the respondents were held liable to pay for such excess area at the original allotment price, with the value thereof to be adjusted against the compensation payable. The appellant was, however, held entitled to demand payment of any balance amount remaining after such adjustment.

3. At the outset, a brief narration of the facts giving rise to the present appeals is necessary. The consumer complaints state that the respondents had booked residential apartments with the appellant in a project developed by it at Sector- 53, Gurgaon known as Parsvnath Exotica. The transaction was subsequently endorsed by the appellant by transferring the allotments in favour of the respondents. The material particulars of the respective cases are as follows:

Case No.	Owner(s) of the Flat	Flat No. & Area	Agreement date and Basic sale price
C.A. No. 5289 of 2022 (Consumer Complaint No. 827 of 2017)	Original owners: Meera Mehra & Raj Kumar Mehra; Subsequent owner: the present respondent	B-5-501 3390 sq. ft.	23.02.2007 and Rs. 2,03,40,000/- Endorsed by the appellant on 20.05.2011
C.A. No. 5290 of 2022 (Consumer Complaint No. 828 of 2017)	Respondent: Gp. Capt. Suman Chopra	B-6-903 3390 sq. ft.	12.03.2007 and Rs. 1,82,72,100/-
C.A. No. 11047 of 2025 (Consumer Case No. 2355 of 2017)	Original owner: Gunja Infrastructure Private Limited; Subsequent owners: Noor Bhatia and Rakesh Bhatia; and thereafter, GPA Holder: Arjun Chawla	B-6-202 3390 sq. ft.	14.02.2011; after 4% rebate of Rs. 2,54,25,000/-, basic price Rs.2,44,08,000/- Transfers dated 07.03.2011 and 02.02.2012

3.1. Under the terms of the Flat Buyer Agreements, possession of the flats was required to be delivered within 36 months from the commencement of construction of the respective blocks, with a grace period of six months. Despite payment of almost the entire sale consideration by the respondents, possession was not delivered within the stipulated or even the extended contractual period. The respondents were therefore constrained to file consumer complaints before the NCDRC seeking inter alia delivery of possession, compensation, damages and costs.

3.2. Before the NCDRC, the appellant contended that the delay was attrib