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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7156

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R. K. Agrawal, PRESIDENT, S. M. Kantikar, MEMBER
Nidhi Gupta and Mala Gupta – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Parsvnath Developers Limited and Dr. Sunit Sachar – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. 1234 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Navin Kr. Thakur
For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari

Contractual clauses that impose unfair obligations are unenforceable, and unreasonable delays in property possession warrant compensation.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21 - Payment for a residential flat - Complainants sought refund of the amount for a delayed possession of a flat booked in a project which remained incomplete for over 11 years - By applying time standards, the Developer was found liable for refund along with interest - It was noted that reliance on global recession was not a valid excuse for non-completion of the project. (Paras 19-21)

(B) Deficiency in Service - The terms of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement were found to be unfair and one-sided, potentially constituting an unfair trade practice as per S.2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 due to unreasonable contractual obligations imposed on the purchaser. (Paras 15-16)

Facts of the case:
The Complainants filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service as the Developer failed to deliver possession of the flat booked in the Parsvnath Exotica project despite advanced payments, citing that the project was still incomplete years after promised completion. The Complainants were advised repeatedly about delays but were left unsatisfied regarding the status of possession.

Findings of Court:
The Developer was directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,22,28,033 along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits, as no reasonable justification for delays was provided.

Issues: The core issues revolved around the unreasonable delay in possession delivery and whether the clauses in the Agreement were binding and fair.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that indefinite delay is unacceptable, and contractual clauses that significantly favor one party may not be enforced. The Claimant is entitled to seek a refund along with stipulated interest due to the continuing failure of possession delivery.

Result: Complaint allowed.

Table of Content
1. consumer complaint based on dissatisfaction due to possession delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented regarding unfair terms and construction delays. (Para 8 , 11 , 12)
3. court's emphasis on contractual fairness and possession timelines. (Para 10 , 14 , 19)
4. rulings on the validity of contract terms enforced for property possession. (Para 16 , 20)
5. final order for refund due to unreasonable delays in possession. (Para 21 , 22)

1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under S.21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by Nidhi Gupta and Mala Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants) against Opposite Party No. 1, M/s. Parsvnath Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Developer) and Opposite Party No. 2 - Dr. Sunit Sachar, Vice President of the Opposite Party No. 1, seeking refund of the amount paid towards purchase of Flat along with interest and costs as the Opposite Party Developer had failed to hand - over the possession of the Flat booked by them in the Project launched by the Developer in the name and style of "Parsvnath Exotica" located at S.53, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon.

2. Brief facts as narrated in the Complaint are that the Opposite Party Developer launched a Residential Group Housing Project in the name and style of "Parsvnath Exotica" located at S.53, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as the Project). Mr. Kamal Mehra and Mrs. Vidushi Mehra (hereinafter referred to as the Original Allottees) were allotted a Flat No. 202 in Tower D - 6 in the said Project. Flat Buyers Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) was executed between the Original Allottees and the Developer on 26.5.2006. Allured by the attractive brochure of the said Project and the assurances given by the Executive of the Developer that all the Flats in the Project have been booked and the possession will be offered to the Allottees in the year 2009 or by the mid of the year 2010, after completing all the formalities, the Complainants got transferred all the rights, title and interest in the Flat No. 202 in Tower D - 6 of the said Project from the Original Allottees, in her favour vide Agreement to Sell dated 16.1.2008. The Developer endorsed all the original receipts and Flat Buyer Agreement in respect of the Flat No. 202 in Tower D - 6 in favour of the Complainants vide Endorsement Form dated 13.2.2008. By availing Home Loan of 42,62,200 from the Kotak Mahindra Bank, the Complainants made full and final payment of 1,22,28,033 (Rupees One Crore Twenty Two Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand and Thirty Three Only) to the Developer on 7.10.2008. It is averred in the Complaint that they have never committed any default in making payment except few installments against which the Developer has already charged a total penalty of 1,28,393 by way of penal interest @24% in terms of the Clause 5(b) of the Flat Buyer Agreement. As per Clause 10(a) of the Agreement, the construction of the said flat was to be completed within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of a particular block in which flat is located. Despite that the Opposite Party Developer miserably failed to deliver the possession of the Flat within stipulated period. It is averred by the Complainant that the construction at the site remained at a standstill since 2009. The Project is still incomplete and the Developer has even not received the Occupancy Certificate in respect of the Tower D - 6 where the allotted Flat is situated. The Complainants have repeatedly enquired from the Developer regarding the status of their Flat on several dates but the Opposite Party Developer did not give any satisfactory reply. When the Complainants decided to initiate legal action in the year 2011, the Opposite Party No. 2 Vice President of the Developer assured that the possession will be handed over by the year 2012 but no assurance or promise came true. The Complainant visited the site in the year 2016 and





























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 Back to top