IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 27.08.2014 Date of reserving the order: 14.11.2025 Date of Decision: 06.01.2026 COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 405/2014 IN THE MATTER OF MR. A.P. SHARMA S/O LATE MR. DURGA PRASAD SHARMA R/O 224, SHRUTI APARTMENT, PLOT NO. 22, SECTOR-VII, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075 …Complainant (Through: Mr. Ravi Dagar, Advocate Mob.9650294993)

VERSUS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD.

AT: 6^th FLOOR, ARUNACHAL BUILDING, 19, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 …Opposite party (Through: Mr. T.P. Chauhan, Advocate Mob.9971522320)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Ravi Dagar, counsel for Complainant (M. No.

9650294993)

Mr. T.P. Chauhan, counsel for OP (M. No. 9971522320)

PER : HON’BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

1. 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 Pl