Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2111
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Padma Pandey, Presiding Member, Rajesh Kumar Arya, Member
Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sudesh Kumar – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/203/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh.I.P.Singh
For the Respondents: Sh.Amardeep Singh Walia, Sh.Sudesh Kumar
A real estate developer cannot force a consumer to wait indefinitely for possession of a residential unit beyond the agreed timelines, and an unreasonable delay justifies the buyer's claim for a full refund of deposited amounts along with interest.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection - Delay in possession of residential flat - Appellants failed to deliver possession within the stipulated time as per the Buyers Agreement - Claim of ‘force majeure’ regarding ban on construction material was not supported by evidence - Appellate court affirmed the order of refund of deposited amount along with interest and compensation - Held, buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. (Paras 6, 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
Complainants booked a residential unit in a project developed by the Appellants and paid a substantial amount. Possession was due by 31.03.2014, but the project remained incomplete years later. The District Commission directed the refund of the deposited amount with interest and compensation for mental agony.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the developer failed to prove the ‘force majeure’ excuse. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it held that seven or more years of delay is unreasonable, and the buyers are entitled to a refund.
Issues: Whether the complaint was barred by limitation and whether the developer is entitled to forfeit money due to the buyer seeking a refund after project failure.
Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser cannot be forced to wait indefinitely for possession of a property beyond a reasonable period. Failure to deliver possession by the committed date constitutes a deficiency in service warranting a refund.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the dispute regarding delayed possession and refund orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| Appeal No. | : | 203 of 2025 |
| Date of Institution | : | 17.06.2025 |
| Date of Decision | : | 25.03.2026 |
1. M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at 1101, Hemkunt Chamber,89, Nehru Place, New Delhi through its authorised Officer Sh.Suraj Kumar.
2. Harpreet Singh, Director, M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd., having Registered office at 1101, Hemkunt Chamber,89, Nehru Place, New Delhi -110019
3. Dakshdeep Singh, Managing Director, M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd., having Registered office at 1101, Hemkunt Chamber,89, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
Appellants
Versus
1. Sudesh Kumar son of Late Sh.Bhagat Ram resident of House No.219/2, Sector 45-A Chandigarh.
2. Rekha Janagal wife of Sudesh Kumar son of Late Sh.Bhagat Ram, resident of House No.219/2, Sector 45-A Chandigarh.
...Respondents
Appeal against the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.358/2021.
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K.ARYA, MEMBER
For the appellants : Sh.I.P.Singh, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh.Amardeep Singh Walia, Advocate alongwith Sh.Sudesh Kumar, respondent No.1 in person.
PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.05.2024, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), whereby consumer complaint (CC/358/2021) filed by the complainants/respondents was partly allowed and the Opposite Parties/appellants(herein) were directed as under ;
“i.To refund amount of 27,91,259/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of respective dates of deposit till realization.
ii.to pay an amount of 1,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them.
iii.to pay 10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”
Before the Ld. District Commission, it was case of the complainants that they were allotted a residential Unit No.A-001, Block-A, Ground Floor, in project Parkwood Glade being developed by the Opposite Parties, having super built area 1260 sq.ft. in Mohali, for a price of Rs.30,22,305/-. Allotment letter dated 20.09.2011 is Annexure C-1 and payment plan dated 20.09.2011 is Annexure C-2. Flat Buyers Agreement was executed between the parties on 25th September, 2011, a copy of which is Annexure C-3. The complainants paid Rs.27,91,259/- to the Opposite Parties as per the demand raised by them in accordance with the schedule Annexure C-4 to C-8. It was further averred that the complainants took home loan of Rs.22,85,000/- from M/s Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., vide letter of offer-cum- acceptance dated 15.10.2022 and have been paying installments to the bank since the date of sanctioning of the loan (Annexure C-10 & C-11). As per clause 19(a) of the Buyers Agreement, the Opposite Parties were to deliver possession of the flat by 31.3.2014 but the same was not offered by the Opposite Parties . As per clause 20(b) of the buyer’s agreement, the Opposite Parties were liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.5 per sq. ft. per month of the super area to the allottees for delay beyond the stipulated period. The complainants paid a sum of Rs.27,91,259/- out of the Rs.30,22,305/-, the cost of the apartment. The complainants visited the office of the Opposite Parties in Mohali several times asking them about the status of the project but did not receive any satisfactory reply. When all efforts made by the complainants to seek redressal
