Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2859
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Bimla Kumari, Member
Priyanka Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
Parsvnath Hessa Developers Ltd. – Respondent
C. NO.201/2022 | COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 201/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Syed Yawar Ahmed, Sudhir Mahajan
For the Respondents: T.P. Chauhan, Shambhavi Singh
Failure to obtain an Occupation Certificate and execute a sale deed constitutes a deficiency in service, and such failure creates a recurrent cause of action, preventing the complaint from being time-barred under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Definition - Commercial Purpose - The purchase of multiple houses or plots does not automatically categorize a buyer as a commercial entity; the onus lies on the developer to provide documentary evidence that the purchase was for the purpose of profit-making. (Para 11-14)
(B) Limitation Period - Continuous Cause of Action - Failure to deliver possession or execute a conveyance deed is a continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action, allowing the consumer to approach the forum as long as the obligation remains unfulfilled. (Para 18, 19)
(C) Deficiency of Service - Real Estate - Failure to obtain an Occupation Certificate from the competent authority and failure to execute the sale deed/registry within a reasonable period constitutes a deficiency in service. (Para 27, 33, 34)
Issues: Whether the complainants are 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and whether the failure to provide an Occupation Certificate and execute the sale deed constitutes a deficiency in service.
PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainants before this commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:
i. Provide occupancy certificate in respect of flat No. 501, Tower B-6, in Parsvnath Exotica, Sector 53, Gurugram, Haryana to the Complainants;
ii. Execute sale deed/conveyance of the flat No. 501, Tower B-6, in Parsvnath Exotica, Sector 53, Gurugram, Haryana in favour of Complainants; and also;
iii. Pay delayed possession / compensation payable on the cost of funds of Rs. 1,52,33,250/- @ 6% p.a. for 11 years which comes to Rs. 1,20,79,000/-; or in the alternative pay the compensation of Rs. 51, 83, 612/- i.e. the benefit as per statement of account till May 20221 basis for the purchase of the said apartment by complainants
iv. To pay Rs. 10,00,000/- towards harassment and mental torture,
v. Cost of the complaint.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that one Mr. Bhupinder Singh and Mrs. Harjeet Kaur booked Flat No. 501 in Tower B-6 in the project namely Parsvnath Exotica of the Opposite Party situated at Sector 54, Gurugram, Haryana. A Flat Buyer Agreement was executed between them on 22.02.2008. Moreover, the original owners opted for a down payment plan whereby they were required to pay 95% of the amount in advance and the remaining 5% was to be made at the time of possession. The aforesaid down payment was duly paid to the Opposite Party by the original owners by April, 2008. Thereafter, the Opposite Party failed to hand over possession of the said flat within the stipulated period as per the terms of the Agreement i.e., on and before 21.02.2011 including grace period. Subsequently, on 16.01.2021, the Opposite Party offered fit-out possession of the said flat to the original allottees along with certain benefits/discounts, including an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- on account of discount in the letter of fit-out possession, Rs.4,66,512/- towards discount on gross value of taxable services and a special rebate of Rs.30,17,100/- towards delay compensation for the period January, 2014 to May, 2021.
3. Thereafter, the present Complainants purchased the said flat from the original allottees with the consent of the Opposite Party and on the assurance that the aforesaid benefits would be transferred to them. Accordingly, the flat was endorsed in favour of the Complainants on 25.01.2022. However, despite such assurances, the Opposite Party failed to extend the said benefits and compensation to the Complainants. Moreover, the Opposite Party offered the possession of the said flat incomplete in all respects and without obtaining Occupation Certificate from the concerned authority. The Complainants, having invested a substantial amount, were constrained to take possession for interior work under duress on 01.02.2022. Also, the Opposite Party failed to execute the registry in favour of the Complainants till date. Despite repeated requests, the Opposite Party refused to pay the assured compensation, which led to the issuance of a legal notice dated 20.04.2022 by the Complainants but to no avail.
4. During the course of proceedings, notice was issued to the Opposite Party on 30.11.2022. It is evident from the order dated 10.07.2023 that the said notice was duly served upon the Opposite Party on 10.01.2023. However, the Opposite Party failed to file its written statement within the stipulated period. Consequently, this commission vide order dated 10.07.2023, closed the right of the Opposite Party to file the written statement. Since the right of the Opposite Party stood closed, the averments made by the Complainants in the present complaint remain unrebutted.
5. The Complainants have filed their evidence by way of affidavit in order to prove the averments made on record
6. The Complainants ha
