Pranav B Prem

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Bimla Kumari, has allowed the complaint filed by Ashok Marwah against Parsvnath Developers Ltd., holding that the builder’s failure to deliver possession of the flat within the agreed period, despite receiving the entire payment, amounted to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The Commission directed the developer to refund the entire amount of ₹56,86,848 with interest and further awarded compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.

Also Read: CESTAT: Compensation For Breach Of Agreement To Sell Land Not Taxable As Declared Service U/S 66E(e) Of Finance Act

Background of the Case

The complainant’s wife, Mrs. Poonam Marwah, had initially booked flat number 701 (measuring 1855 sq. ft.) in Tower-18 of the “Parsvnath Privilege” project at Greater Noida, being developed by Parsvnath Developers Ltd. The Flat Buyers Agreement was executed on 20 June 2007 for a total sale price of ₹54,72,250. Later, Mrs. Marwah transferred her rights to the complainant, who became the sole owner of the flat in 2016 after his father’s demise.

According to the agreement, possession was to be delivered within 36 months from the commencement of construction. However, despite paying a total of ₹56,86,848 (which included an amount adjusted from another cancelled booking in the same project), the complainant never received possession. The builder failed to complete construction or obtain the Occupancy/Completion Certificate. In 2017, Parsvnath Developers offered a rebate of ₹6 lakh if the complainant undertook the finishing and interior work himself, but the offer was declined as unreasonable. The complainant alleged that continuous delays, false assurances, and refusal to refund the amount caused him severe financial loss and mental harassment.

Contentions of the Parties

The complainant contended that having paid the entire consideration as demanded, he was entitled to possession or refund with interest. The developer’s conduct, he argued, amounted to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.

The opposite party, on the other hand, argued that the complaint was not maintainable since the complainant had earlier filed and withdrawn similar cases before RERA, Uttar Pradesh, and the NCLT, Delhi. The developer also alleged that the complainant was not a “consumer” since the flat was purchased for commercial investment. It further attributed the delay to external factors such as a slowdown in the real estate market, delays in land approvals, and disputes with the Greater Noida Authority. The builder also claimed to have granted a rebate of ₹7,32,725 towards delay compensation and contended that the complaint was time-barred and involved complex issues not suitable for adjudication under summary procedure.

Also Read: Discretion Vested Upon NCLT U/S 7(5)(A) IBC Cannot Be Used To Impel Financial Creditor To Consider Settlement: NCLT Chennai

Findings and Observations of the Commission

The Commission first addressed the builder’s preliminary objections regarding maintainability. It held that since the complainant had withdrawn his cases before RERA and NCLT without any adjudication on merits, the present complaint before the Consumer Commission was maintainable. Referring to Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission noted that remedies under the Act are “in addition to and not in derogation of” other laws.

On the question of whether the complainant qualified as a “consumer,” the Commission relied on the definition under Section 2(7) of the Act and on precedents such as Narinder Kumar Bairwal & Ors. v. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2019) and Anju Vinod Saraswat v. Sahara Prime City Ltd. (2022). It observed that there was no evidence to show that the complainant was engaged in the business of buying and selling flats for profit. Thus, he was deemed to be a consumer within the meaning of the Act.

Regarding limitation, the Commission cited Mehnga Singh Khera & Ors. v. Unitech Ltd. (2020), holding that failure to deliver possession constitutes a continuing wrong and gives rise to a recurrent cause of action until possession is handed over or refused. Since the possession had not been offered, the complaint was within limitation. The Commission also rejected the builder’s argument that the matter involved complex questions of law and fact, observing that the Consumer Commission, headed by a retired High Court Judge, is competent to adjudicate such issues as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002).

Deficiency in Service Established

On merits, the Commission observed that under Clause 10(a) of the Flat Buyers Agreement, the builder was obligated to deliver possession within 36 months from the start of construction. The developer, however, failed to complete the flat or obtain necessary occupancy and completion certificates. Despite receiving more than the agreed price by 2013, the opposite party neither delivered possession nor provided any convincing proof of force majeure conditions that could justify the delay.

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (2020), the Commission reiterated that failure to hand over possession within the stipulated time constitutes a deficiency of service. It further referred to Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima (2018), emphasizing that a homebuyer cannot be expected to wait indefinitely to enjoy the benefit of his hard-earned money.

Final Directions

Concluding that the builder was deficient in service and had engaged in unfair trade practice, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed Parsvnath Developers Ltd. to:

• Refund ₹56,86,848 to the complainant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of each payment until 04 September 2025, provided payment is made by 04 November 2025.

• In case of failure to comply within this period, refund the amount with interest at 9% per annum until realization.

• Pay ₹1,50,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

• Pay ₹50,000 as litigation costs.

Also Read: NCLT Kolkata Admits Insolvency Plea Against Jain Infraprojects, Grants Two-Month Window for Settlement with IDBI Bank

The complaint was thus allowed, and the file was ordered to be consigned to the record room after compliance.

Appearance

Mr. Mukesh Gahlot, counsel for the Complainant

Mr. T.P. Chauhan, counsel for the OP 

Cause Title: Ashok Marwah V. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Case No: Complaint Case No.23/2025

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Bimla Kumari