July 19, 2025

Delhi State Commission Orders Parsvanath Developers to Compensate Flat Buyer for Delay

Consumer Forum Awards ₹5.5 Lakhs Including Compensation and Legal Costs

By Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani
Published on 02.07.2025 | Consumer Law, Real Estate | 4-Minute Read

Key Highlights

Flat booked in 2007; no possession even after 18 years

₹26.93 lakh paid by the complainants, but delivery was indefinitely delayed

Builder claimed recession and technicalities as a defense

Delhi Commission ruled in favour of homebuyers, citing deficiency in service

Relief includes ₹4 lakh compensation, ₹1 lakh for mental agony, ₹50,000 as litigation costs

Justice Delivered in Flat Possession Delay: Parsvanath Developers Held Liable

New Delhi: In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of homebuyers, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Parsvanath Developers Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for its prolonged delay in delivering possession of a residential flat booked in 2007.

The bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member) ordered Parsvanath Developers to hand over possession of the flat and pay a total of ₹5.5 lakhs to the complainants.

Also Read Commission Fines Fairdeal Motors ₹1.47 Lakhs For Fake Registration

Case Background

The complainants, Mr. Nitin Bansal and Mrs. Amita Bansal, booked a 3BHK flat (Flat No. T2-302) with Parsvanath Developers Ltd. for a total consideration of ₹27.68 lakh under a construction-linked payment plan. A Flat Buyer Agreement was signed on 19.04.2007, with a promise of possession within 30 months + 6-month grace from construction commencement.

Despite having paid ₹26.93 lakh, the buyers were neither handed over possession nor given clarity on the area hike (120 sq. ft), parking, VAT, or final registration details. After failed attempts to resolve the matter, the complainants filed Complaint No. 782/2016.

Builder’s Defence: Jurisdiction & Global Recession

The builder argued that the State Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction, the complaint was not maintainable and involved complex legal questions, and the delay was due to the global recession and external factors beyond control.

However, the Commission rejected these arguments, noting that the builder’s registered office at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi gave jurisdiction to the Delhi Commission under Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint was purely based on non-delivery of possession, making it maintainable under consumer law.

Deficiency in Service: Citing Supreme Court Judgments

The Commission relied on the landmark ruling in Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes (2020), where the Supreme Court held that failure to deliver possession within a contractual timeframe constitutes deficiency in service.

Clause 10 of the Flat Buyer Agreement required possession to be delivered within 30 months + 6 months grace — a timeline that the builder failed to honour.

Outcome and Relief Granted

As per the Commission’s final judgment:

– Possession must be handed over immediately

– Builder must pay ₹4,00,000 as delay compensation

-₹1,00,000 for mental agony and harassment

– ₹50,000 as litigation costs

In the event of default, the builder will have to refund the entire amount with interest at 9% p.a. from 16.12.2014 till actual realization.

Why This Ruling Is Important

Reaffirms the jurisdiction of State Commissions in homebuyer disputes

Establishes developer accountability in project delays

Underscores that contractual timelines are enforceable

Acts as a deterrent for builders indulging in evasive tactics

Expert Take

“The Commission rightly held that the consumer forum is not powerless to entertain complaints just because legal issues are involved. A contractual breach is a consumer rights violation. This is a major win for delayed possession victims.”
— Adv. Tushant Deep Garg, Counsel for Complainants

Case Details

Case Title: Nitin Bansal & Anr. vs Parsvanath Developers Ltd.
Complaint No.: 782 / 2016
Decision Date: 02.07.2025
Bench: Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal & Ms. Pinki
Advocates: Adv. Tushant Deep Garg (Complainants), Adv. T.P. Chauhan & Adv. Tanvi Garg (Opposite Party)

Read and download the full order:
Click Here

For more legal insights, visit: www.thelawsuits.in

Published in public interest by:
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani
Citizens Justice Forum | The Law Suits
413, Golden Chambers, Opp. Tanishq Showroom, Near Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053
+91-8928372392 | adv.bhimani@gmail.com