Delhi State Consumer Commission Orders Parsvnath Developers To Refund Over ₹56 Lakh With Interest For Failure To Deliver Possession Of The Flat

Brief Facts of the Case:

The complainant had booked flat number 701 (size 1855 sq. ft.) in Tower-18 of the "Parsvnath Privilege" project in Greater Noida, which was being developed by Parsvnath Developers Limited (the 'Opposite Party'). The total value of the flat was ₹54,72,250/-. The Flat Buyers Agreement was executed between the parties on 20.06.2007, according to clause 10 of which possession of the flat was to be delivered within 36 months. Despite paying ₹56,86,848, the developer failed to complete construction or offer possession or the required Occupancy Certificate for the flat. According to the complainant, he has had to bear the cost of alternative accommodation so far, and in 2017 the builder offered only a ₹6 lakh discount by proposing that the complainant get the interior work done himself, which was rejected. Persistent delays, false assurances, and refusal to refund the amount paid demonstrate unfair business practices on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant filed the complaint before the Delhi State Consumer Commission in 2025 seeking compensation.

Contentions of the Complainant:

The complainant argued that he had paid the full price of the booked flat, amounting to ₹56,86,848/-, on time, yet the builder failed to hand over possession of the flat within 36 months as per the contract. The complainant further contended that he repeatedly met with the builder and sought information about the progress of construction, but only received assurances, and the flat was still not ready. The builder also failed to obtain the occupancy/completion certificate and, in 2017, proposed that the complainant get the finishing and interior work done himself in return for a rebate of ₹6,00,000/-, which the complainant rejected as it was expensive and time-consuming. Due to these delays and failures, the complainant and his family suffered mental stress and financial loss. On this basis, the complainant claimed that the builder's actions constituted Deficiency of Service and Unfair Trade Practice, and that he was entitled to a refund of the amount paid along with appropriate compensation.

Contentions of the Opposite Party:

The opposite party, in its reply, stated that the complainant had already filed a complaint in the same case with RERA, UP, and NCLT, Delhi, which he himself later withdrew; therefore, the present complaint is inadmissible. Further, the opposite party claimed that the complainant had purchased the flat for business purposes and not for personal use, and hence does not fall under the category of a 'consumer'. The delay in construction of the project was due to a slowdown in the real estate sector, delays in land approvals, and other unforeseen circumstances, which were beyond the builder's control. Despite this, the builder had already offered the complainant a special concession of ₹7,32,725/- and, in 2017, a rebate of ₹6,00,000/-. The opposite party further argued that the complainant did not raise any serious objections for a considerable period of time, and therefore the matter is beyond the time limit and involves complex issues that cannot be resolved solely through the Consumer Commission.

Observation of the Commission:

The Commission observed that the complainant had paid the entire amount for the flat, but the builder failed to hand over possession within the 36 months stipulated in the contract. The builder neither completed the construction nor obtained the occupancy/completion certificate. The delay continued despite repeated assurances, and in 2017 the builder proposed that the complainant finish the flat on his own in return for a rebate of ₹6,00,000/-.

The builder claimed that the delay was due to a slowdown in the real estate sector, delays in approvals, and other unforeseen circumstances. However, the builder failed to provide any cogent evidence to support these claims.

The Commission also noted that the complainant had earlier filed complaints with RERA and NCLT, which he himself withdrew, and therefore no prohibition exists on the present complaint. Furthermore, the Commission observed that the complainant had purchased the flat for personal use and not for commercial purposes, and hence falls within the definition of a 'consumer'.

Based on these findings, the Commission held that the builder's actions amounted to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, causing both economic and mental loss to the complainant.

Accordingly, the Commission directed the builder to refund ₹56,86,848/- to the complainant, along with interest. In addition, the complainant was awarded ₹1,50,000/- for mental agony and harassment, and ₹50,000/- for litigation expenses.

Case Title: ASHOK MARWAH VS. M/S PARSVNATH DEV. LTD

Case No: CC23/2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order