14-year delay in handing over flat: Parsvnath Developers directed to pay compensation of Rs 40 lakh to complainant
The developer, however, argued that the delay in completing the construction was not wilful and was caused due to the global economic slowdown.
3 min read
Terming Parsvnath Developers “deficient in providing services”, the Commission directed it to refund Rs 37 lakh paid to it by Pradeep Saraswat along with 6 per cent interest. The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Parsvnath Developers to pay a compensation of Rs 40 lakh to a complainant over a delay in handing over the possession of a flat after noting that the firm was sitting on his hard-earned money for over 14 years.
Terming Parsvnath Developers “deficient in providing services”, the Commission directed it to refund Rs 37 lakh paid to it by Pradeep Saraswat along with 6 per cent interest. It further directed Parsvnath to pay Rs 2 lakh for causing mental agony and to cover Saraswat’s litigation costs.
“Consequently, we hold that the Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainant as the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the Complainant with respect to the time for handing over possession of the said flat,” said Judge Rajan Sharma of the Commission in a judgment passed last month.
In 2008, the complainant and the firm had entered into an agreement whereby Parsvnath assured the buyer that he would get possession of the house within three years after the commencement of construction. The complainant had alleged that he had paid the developers according to their down payment plan which entailed paying 10 per cent of the total amount at the time of booking, 73 per cent within the next 45 days and 5 per cent at the time of possession. It was further alleged by the complainant that when he visited the site multiple times, he could not see even a single construction labourer working on it.
Parsvnath Developers, however, argued that the delay in completing the construction was not wilful and was caused due to the global economic slowdown experienced by the real estate sector in the country. It further argued that the complainant did not fit the criteria of being a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act.
The court rejected these contentions of the opposite party and held that they had provided no documentary proof and were just relying on ‘bold statements’ to make their case against the complainant. It was further observed by the court that the possession was still not handed over to Saraswat.
Relying on the Consumer Protection Act, Parsvnath also held that the time for filing the complaint should be within two years from the date when the “cause of action has arisen”.
The court rejected this argument as well, observing that Parsvnath had not refused to hand over possession of the flat to Saraswat at any time and constantly reassured him that the construction would be completed. The court therefore ruled that the cause of action was in favour of the complainant and the complaint filed by him was valid.
Lastly, the developers argued that the present case involved complicated questions of law which should be decided by a civil court instead of the consumers’ commission. The court, however, ruled that “nothing cogent” had been produced on record to show the complicated questions involved.
You May Like
