National Consumer Commission Holds Parsvnath Developers Liable For Deficiency In Service Over Delayed Delivery Of Possession

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, consisting of Ram Surat Ram Maurya (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (member), held that the buyer cannot be made to wait for an infinite period to deliver possession, considering such a delay as deficiency of service.

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant booked a residential apartment/penthouse for himself and his family, paying Rs. 7,85,72,450. The flat was provisionally allotted, and the delivery was supposed to happen in a few months since the structural work was done. The complainant asked the developer via email to make interior changes in the penthouse, but the developer replied that it wasn't possible as a contractual agency was handling the interior work. The complainant wrote letters to shift his flat due to possession delays but received no response. Later, the complainant demanded compensation for the possession delay, but the developer failed to hand over possession on the promised date. The complainant was informed about a later delivery date, but that was not met. The developer cited a further delay of three months. The complainant didn't receive a copy of the flat buyer agreement and had to visit the developer's corporate office to request it. Despite efforts to contact the developer electronically about possession, there was no response.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The developer responded in writing, acknowledging the booking and deposit payments made by the complainant for the flat. They explained that the delay in confirming the project land from DMRC caused some initial setbacks. Subsequently, they obtained necessary approvals for the layout and building plans from relevant authorities but had to make significant adjustments due to changes in the Master Plan of Delhi in 2007. Once approvals were secured, construction began and was successfully completed. The developer argued that they never guaranteed completion of the flats within 3 years. According to clause 11 in the flat buyer agreement, it was mentioned that construction would likely be finished within 36 months from the start of construction for the specific tower where the flat was booked or from the booking date, whichever is later. There was also a grace period of 6 months, subject to unforeseen circumstances. The developer's counsel concluded that the delay in handing over possession was beyond their control.

Observations by the Commission

The commission observed that the dispute relates to the delay in handing over the possession. They found that the developer acknowledged the dates promised for giving physical possession, as claimed by the person filing the complaint. The letters from the developer confirm the delay. The commission pointed out that the reasons for the delay, as stated by the developer, were irrelevant, and even now, the developer cannot hand over the property. As a result, the developer is obligated to refund the amount along with interest. The commission referred to prior Supreme Court cases, such as Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank and Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D' Limba, which ruled that the buyer cannot be made to wait for an infinite period to deliver possession.

The Commission directed the developer to refund Rs. 7,85,72,240 to the complainant with an interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit and Rs. 50,000 as costs of the proceeding,

Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. M.P. Bhargava

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Adv. Prabhakar Tiwari

Case Title: Dhwanit Parmar Vs. Parsvnath Landmark Developers Pvt. Ltd

Case Number: C.C. No.- 1485/2015

Click Here To Read/Download The Order