Delhi State Consumer Commission Holds Advance Plot Booking Doesn’t Create Right To Allotment, Upholds Refund With Interest
Pranav B Prem
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by a homebuyer seeking possession of a residential plot booked under a pre-launch scheme and has upheld the direction to refund the deposited amount with interest. The Commission held that booking a plot under an advance registration or pre-launch scheme does not create any vested right to seek allotment or possession of a specific plot in the absence of an allotment letter or a builder-buyer agreement.
The Bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, and Bimla Kumari, Member, found no infirmity in the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing Parsvnath Developers Ltd. to refund the amount received from the complainant with interest, while rejecting the plea for grant of possession.
The appeal was preferred by Mr. Shiv Kumar Gupta, who had booked a residential plot measuring 300 square metres under a pre-launch scheme floated by Parsvnath Developers Ltd. at its project “Parsvnath City” in Sonipat, Haryana. The booking was initially made by one Rekha Gupta on payment of ₹1,57,500. Subsequently, with the consent of the developer, the booking was transferred in favour of the appellant, pursuant to which he paid an additional amount of ₹3,36,000.
At the time of booking, the developer allotted a priority number, which was initially 797 and was later improved to priority number 53. However, despite repeated visits, representations, and issuance of legal notices by the complainant, no specific plot number was ever allotted, nor was possession handed over.
Aggrieved by the prolonged inaction on the part of the developer, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi, seeking possession of the plot along with compensation and interest. The District Commission, while holding that the developer had indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, noted that the booking was only under an advance registration scheme and that no builder-buyer agreement had been executed between the parties. It also recorded that no specific plot had ever been allotted to the complainant.
In these circumstances, the District Commission held that directing possession of an unidentified plot was not legally permissible. Accordingly, it directed the developer to refund a sum of ₹4,93,500 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit, along with ₹40,000 towards compensation and litigation expenses.
Challenging this order, the complainant approached the State Commission contending that he had never sought refund of the amount and that the District Commission ought to have directed allotment and possession of the plot instead of granting refund.
Opposing the appeal, Parsvnath Developers Ltd. submitted that the booking was governed by an Advance Registration Form, which did not confer any enforceable right upon the complainant to seek allotment of a specific plot. It was argued that allotment was subject to availability and development of the project and that, as per the terms of booking, the complainant was entitled only to refund of the deposited amount with interest in case allotment did not materialise. The developer asserted that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice could be attributed to it.
After considering the rival submissions and examining the record, the State Commission observed that booking under an advance registration or pre-launch scheme does not, by itself, create any vested right to allotment. While a priority number had been assigned to the complainant, the Commission noted that no specific plot number was ever allotted and no agreement defining the rights and obligations of the parties was executed. The Commission held that in the absence of identification and allotment of a specific plot, the developer could not be directed to hand over possession. At the same time, it found that the prolonged failure of the developer to either allot a plot or refund the deposited amount constituted deficiency in service.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the District Commission, the State Commission upheld the direction to refund ₹4,93,500 with interest at 12% per annum along with ₹40,000 towards compensation and litigation expenses. Consequently, the appeal seeking possession of the plot was dismissed, and the order of refund was affirmed.
Cause Title: Mr. Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Parsvnath Developers Limited
Case Number: FA/336/2024
Coram: Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, and Bimla Kumari, Member
