Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Pinki, Member (Judicial)
A.P. Sharma – Complainant
versus
Parsvnath Developers Ltd. – Opp. Party
Complaint Case No.405 of 2014
Decided on 6.1.2026
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 17 and 24-A – Housing – Residential Plot – Booking of – Non-delivery of possession – Deficiency in service – Unfair Trade Practice – Limitation – Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Refund with interest and Compensation – I. Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Section 17 – Complainant claimed a total sum of Rs.21,02,360/- (including refund, interest, and compensation) – Held, the claim exceeds Rs.20 Lakhs but does not exceed Rs.1 Crore – State Commission has the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint – II. Limitation – Section 24A – Continuous Cause of Action – Plea by Developer that complaint is barred by limitation as the date for possession expired more than two years prior – Held, failure to give possession is a continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action – As long as possession is not delivered, buyers have a right to approach Consumer Courts – Complaint held to be within limitation – III. Consumer Forums vs. Civil Court – Summary Procedure – Plea that complaint involves complicated questions of law and fact requiring Civil Court trial – Held, Consumer Commissions are headed by retired Judges and are competent to decide such issues – Merely because the procedure is summary does not imply justice cannot be done – No complicated questions found in the present case – Plea rejected – IV. Real Estate – Deficiency in Service – Lack of Approvals – Developer failed to complete internal development within stipulated 24 months despite receiving 90% of consideration – Developer admitted delay due to lack of development permission/demarcation – Held, Developer collected money without necessary permissions/sanctions at the time of booking and misguided the Complainant – Amount retained for 16 years – Clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice – V. Relief – Complaint allowed – Developer directed to refund entire amount of Rs.8,82,360/- with interest @ 6% p.a. – Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded for mental agony and harassment – Litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed – Default stipulation: Interest to increase to 9% p.a. if payment not made by specified date.
Result: Complaint allowed.
JUDGMENT
Pinki, Member (Judicial)—The brief facts necessary for deciding the present complaint are that the son of Complainant was working at Indore and the Complainant and his wife, namely, Mrs. Neeraj Sharma, with a view to construct their house and residing with their son in the old age, had booked a residential plot with the Opposite Party in its project namely ‘Parsvnath City’ at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. On 30.01.2008, ‘Plot Buyers Agreement’ was executed between the Complainant and his wife and the Opposite Party for plot bearing No.M-233 admeasuring 172 sq. yards in the above said project. The basic price of the said plot was of Rs.9,28,800/-. As per clause 5(a) of the said agreement, the Opposite Party had agreed to complete the internal development work of the project within 24 months from the date of signing of the agreement subject to force majeure, restraints or restrictions from any courts/authorities, disputes with contractors/work force etc., circumstances beyond the control of the Developer and subject to timely payments by the Buyers.
2. It is further stated by the Complainant that between January, 2007 and February, 2009, he had paid a total amount of Rs.8,82,360/- to the Opposite Party, as demanded from time to time.
3. It is the case of Complainant that despite receiving more than 90% of the total consideration amount of the said plot, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 22.03.2010 informed that the development work of the plot was delayed due to delay by the competent authority in granting development permission and demarcation of the site. On receipt of said letter, the Complainant came to know that the Opposite Party did not even have the necessary permission to develop the land at the time of booking of the plot.
4. It is further the case of Complainant that he waited for a long for the allotment and development of the plot. Due to his advanced age and health conditions, he requested the Opposite Party to refund the entire money along with interest @ 18% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- by sending the notices dated 16.07.2012 & 15.05.2014, respectively. But, the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to reply to the same.
5. Thus, the Complainant was left with no other option but to file the present complaint on 27.08.2014 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
6. Upon filing of the complaint, notice of the complaint was issued to the Opposite Party on 20.11.2014.
7. After service, the Opposite Party filed its written statement on 06.08.2015 wherein the Opposite Party had raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. It was contended that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the basic cost of the unit in question was Rs.9,28,800/-. It was further contended that the present complaint is barred by limitation and does not disclose any cause of action. It was further contended that the present complaint involves complicated questions of law, which cannot be decided by the summary procedure adopted by this Commission. The Opposite Party further stated that there was no violation of the Plot Buyers Agreement at any point of time. The delay in completing the project was due to global economic slowdown, experienced by the real estate sector in the country. In case of delay, the rights of Complainant were duly protected as per clause 5 (c), according to which, Opposite Party had to pay delay compensation @ Rs. 10/- per sq. yards. The present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. The Complainant has deliberately concealed the material facts from this Commission. The Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary cost.
8. The Complainant has filed a rejoinder rebutting the averments made in the written statement filed by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has also denied the allegations raised by the Opposite Party and recapitulated the facts stated
Possession – Failure to deliver possession constitutes a recurrent cause of action and that the developer had misled the complainant by collecting funds without holding necessary statutory permission....
(1) Plot Buyers Agreement—It is for Opposite Party to prove that Plot was purchased for commercial purpose, by way of some documentary proof.(2) Complainants cannot be expected to wait for indefinite....
The jurisdictional and compensatory frameworks under the Consumer Protection Act aid consumers in securing redressal for deficiencies in service.
1. Builder cannot claim lack of due diligence and creation of alternative arrangements to a situation as ‘Force Majeure’ defense.2. The purchase of a plot/apartment is a continuing course of action t....
A partnership firm qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, establishing rights to seek redress for deficiency in service.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
