SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Parsvnath Exotica Ghaziabad Flat Buyers
Association —Complainant
versus
Parsvnath Developers Ltd. and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.3508 of 2017
Decided on 15.10.2020

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Refund of amount deposited with interest directed to be paid to allottee of flats for non-delivery of possession of flats.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 12(1)(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 35]—Allotment of flat—Possession not delivered—Refund of amount—Scope—Complainants were a registered consumer association—Possession of allotted flat was not offered to them and even the construction was not complete—Complaint maintainable despite the permission in terms of Section 12(1)(c) having been granted before this fresh complaint on the same cause of action was instituted—Refund of entire principal amount directed along with interest @ 10 % p.a.—Rs. 3 lacs also directed to be paid to each allottee as compensation—And Rs. 50,000/- also as cost of litigation. (Paras 7 to 10)

Result: Complaint disposed of.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—The complainant before this Commission is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 18.08.2016. The aims and objectives of the complainant include the following:

18A. That the present association is an association of flat buyers and the members thereof have common interests being purchasers/consumer in the same project and as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. It is made clear that the present association has not been formed for making financial gains, rather the sole purpose of association is to serve the cause of the society/members in general and to protect the rights of its Members being Consumer and Purchaser of flats.

18B. That the members of the present association have joined hands together on their own freewill and without being motivated by any financial consideration. The main objectives of the present association is to pursue, propagate, advance, safeguard and promote the interests of the members in general before the Hon’ble National Commission, State Commissions, District Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, Hon’ble Tribunals, Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court being a purchaser of flats and consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The complainant therefore, claims to be a recognized Consumer association in terms of Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint has been instituted on behalf of as many as 40 buyers of residential flats in a project namely ‘Parsvnath Exotica’ which was proposed to be developed in Ghaziabad. The complaint was instituted against two companies namely ‘Parsvnath Developers Limited’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘PDL’) and ‘Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘PBPL’). One of the allottees on whose behalf this complaint was instituted, having withdrawn, the complaint now continues on behalf of the remaining 39 allottees of the above referred project. The details of the allottments made to the above referred persons have been given in Annexure P-4 to the complaint and need not be reproduced in this judgment. The allottees at serial number 24 namely Ms. Preeti Dewan and Mr. Nitin Dewan have withdrawn from this complaint and therefore, the allotment made to the remaining 39 allottees is the subject matter of this Consumer Complaint.

3. Out of the above referred 39 allottees, four allottees (at serial number 23 i.e. Ms. Ashti Khan and Dr. Sabha Anwar Khan, at serial number 30 i.e. Mr. Ram Parvesh and Ms. Savitri Devi, at serial number 34 Ms. Ajiti Misra and Ms. Prabha Rani and at serial number 40 i.e. Ms. Kiran Lata and Col. D.N. Karan) had executed agreements with ‘Parsvnath Developers Ltd.’ whereas remaining 35 allottees had executed agreements with ‘Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.’ The agreements were executed on different dates between 2012 to 2014 and the grievance of the allottees is that despite they having made substantial payments, the possession of the allotted flats was not offered to them and even the construction was not complete. The complainant is therefore, seeking refund of the amount paid by the above referred 39 allottees alongwith compensation and interest on the said amounts.

4. The complaint has been resisted by the OPs who have not disputed the allotment made to the above referred 39 allottees and the payments received from them. It is inter-alia stated in their written version that PDL had entered to a development agreement with a company namely ‘M/s Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd.’ Where-under PDL was to carry out development, construction and sale of areas on the land owned by M/s Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. An SPV in the name of Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was then formed in order to expedite the construction and development. The OPs have sought to justify the delay in completion of the construction on several grounds including the acts and omissions attributed to M/s Devidayal Aluminium Indust

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top