Multiple Complaints With Same Grievance Cannot Be Maintained: Delhi State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Parsvnath Developers

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant booked a flat in the Parsvnath Developers' project and was allotted a unit for Rs. 30,21,201. A Flat Buyer Agreement was signed, and the complainant paid Rs. 4,53,180 upfront. The agreement promised possession within 36 months, with a 6-month grace period. A loan of Rs. 24,16,961 was also arranged through Axis Bank and paid directly to the developer, with the complainant making monthly installments. Despite paying a total of Rs. 28,70,141, the developer failed to complete construction or hand over possession. Multiple attempts to communicate with the developer were unsuccessful. The complainant issued a legal notice requesting a refund with interest but received no satisfactory response. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a case, citing service deficiency and unfair trade practices. The complainant has sought a refund of the full amount paid of Rs. 28,70,141.19 with 7% interest, Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation and appropriate litigation costs.

Contentions of the Developer

The developer disputed the maintainability of the complaint. It was further argued that the complainant does not qualify as a 'Consumer' per the Consumer Protection Act as the flat was purchased for 'Commercial Purpose'. The developer also stated the case involves complex facts and legal issues needing detailed evidence and witness examination, which cannot be resolved through the Commission's summary procedure.

Observations by the State Commission

The State Commission observed that the developer raised an objection, stating that some allottees of the project filed a complaint with the National Commission, which granted permission for a class action under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The developer argued that the present complaint should be rejected based on this earlier order. The Commission referred to the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that multiple complaints with the same grievance cannot be maintained. The Commission held that the first complaint with permission can proceed, and others must be dismissed unless they join the first complaint. In this case, since the National Commission had granted permission for the class action complaint in 2016, hence, the individual complaint filed later in 2021 could not continue. The State Commission dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant to join the existing class action complaint.

Case Title: Mrs. Anita Raheja Vs. M/S Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Case Number: C.C. No. 222/2021

Click Here To Read/Download The Order