State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anita Babbar vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd. on 15 December, 2025
C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 28.12.2018
Date of hearing: 20.11.2025
Date of Decision: 15.12.2025
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 1654/2018
IN THE MATTER OF
LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR,
(THROUGH HER LR'S)
1. MRS. SONIA MAGU,
D/O LATE MR. SATISH CHANDER BABBAR,
W/O MR. RAKESH MAGU,
R/O 68, RING ROAD, LAJPAT NAGAR - III,
NEW DELHI - 110024.
2. MRS. SHWETA MALHOTRA,
D/O LATE MR. SATISH CHANDER BABBAR,
W/O MR. AMIT MALHOTRA,
R/O C-58, RAJOURI GARDEN,
NEW DELHI -27.
3. MR. JATEEN KUMAR BABBAR,
S/O LATE MR. SATISH CHANDER BABBAR,
R/O F 8/8, VASANT VIHAR,
NEW DELHI - 110057.
(Through: ASA Legal Services LLP)
...Complainant
VERSUS
M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD.
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 14
C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
6TH FLOOR, ARUNACHAL BUILDING,
19 BARAKHAMBA ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110001.
(Through: KNM Legal & Associates)
...Opposite Party
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: None for the complainant.
Ms. Tanvi Garg, Counsel for the OP (Mobile: 997152232(
Email: [email protected]) appeared through VC.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been returned by the District Commission vide order 04.04.2018 on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, filed by the Complainant before this commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:
a) admit this Complaint of the Complainants;
b) issue the summons/notices to the Opposite Parties to appear, produce and file all ORIGINAL Papers/ documents concerning in the Parsvnath Group Housing Project namely T- 21-2003 in Parsvnath Privilege (Area 1855 Sq. Ft.), thus, purchaser(s) of Flat/ apartment', for the perusal of this Hon'ble. District Forum;
ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 14 C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
c) hold Opposite Parties guilty of Deficiency in Services;
Unfair Trade Practices; and Restrictive Trade Practice;
d) Refund of Rs. 14,20,814.06/- along with the interest @ 18% from the date of deposit.
e) direct Opposite Parties to pay damages as per their own commitments and obligations while signing application Form and entering agreement @ Rs.5 per Sq. Ft per month till the date of actual physical Possession to Complainants;
f) direct Opposite Parties to pay the cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) to Complainants;
g) Grant any other relief/s to which the Complainants are found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, fair play and equity, and for upholding rule of law.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainant booked a flat with the Opposite Party in the project "Parsvnath Privilege" situated in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, by paying an earnest money of Rs.10,00,000. Subsequently, the Opposite Party vide allotment letter dated 23.02.2007, allotted flat bearing No. T21-2003 to the Complainant in the aforesaid project. Thereafter, the Flat Buyer Agreement dated 06.06.2007 was executed between the parties. As per Clause 10(a) of the said agreement, the Opposite Party was obligated to complete the construction within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of the particular block in which the flat is located. However, the Opposite Party has failed to hand over possession of the said flat to the Complainant till date.
3. Thereafter, the Complainant made several inquiries regarding possession of the said flat, however, the Opposite Party failed to provide any satisfactory response. The Complainant paid a total sum of ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 14 C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
Rs.14,20,814.06/- to the Opposite Party as and when demanded. Aggrieved by the act of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has approached this Commission, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party.
4. It is clear from the order dated 02.08.2019 that when the present complaint was received back from the District Commission, it was at the stage of filing the rejoinder and evidence. Accordingly, this Commission directed both parties to complete the pleadings. Further, it is evident from the record that the Opposite Party was directed on 18.09.2020 and 10.02.2023 to file its evidence by way of affidavit but the Opposite Party failed to comply. Therefore, on 04.05.2023, a last and final opportunity was granted to the Opposite Party to file its evidence by way of affidavit. However, despite the separate order dated 04.05.2023, the Opposite Party again failed to file the same. Consequently, the right of the Opposite Party to file evidence by way of affidavit was closed by this Commission on 04.07.2023. Since the Opposite Party failed to file its evidence within the prescribed time, the averments made in the present complaint remain unrebutted.
5. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Party. Thereafter, both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
6. The Complainant has also filed its written arguments and relied upon the following judgments:
i. Malika Sethi vs. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. C.C. No. 138 of 2016 ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 14 C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
ii. Aashish Oberai Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited I (2017) CPJ 17(NC) iii. Mehnga Singh Khera and Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. as reported in I (2020) CPJ 93 (NC) iv. Rajesh Maggu vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. C.C. No. 530 /2016 decided on 18.08.2021 v. CCI Chambers Coop. HSG. Society Ltd. vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. reported as (2003)7 SCC 233 vi. Neeraj Kakkar vs. Parsvnath Developers C.C. No. 774/2017 decided on 05.07.2022 vii. Rohit Jain VS. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.
7. The Opposite Party has filed the written arguments and submitted that the Complainant is not a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the investment was allegedly made with a view to earning profit, thereby constituting a "commercial purpose." He further submitted that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the present complaint involves complicated questions of fact and law, which require detailed oral and documentary evidence for adjudication, making it unsuitable for disposal through summary proceedings. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.
8. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the Opposite Party.
9. The fact that the Complainant had booked the said flat with the Opposite Party is evident from the Flat Buyer Agreement dated 06.06.2007, attached with the complaint (Annexure C-7). Payment to ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 14 C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
the extent of Rs.14,20,814.06/- by the Complainant is evident from the record.
10. The first question for consideration before us is whether complainant falls in the category of 'consumer' under the consumer protection act, 1986?
11. The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant is not Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as complainant invested the money to earn profit, which amounts to commercial purpose. To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Aashish Oberai Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited reported in I (2017) CPJ 17(NC) wherein it is held as under:
"6. .......A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose."
12. It is imperative to refer to the dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission in CC-1122/2018 titled Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors. vs. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 14 C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
decided on 01.11.2019, wherein, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"19. The contention of the Learned Counsel that the said Flats were purchased for commercial purpose is not supported by any documentary evidence as the onus shifts to the Opposite Parties to establish that the Complainant have purchased the same to indulge in 'purchase and sale of flats' as was held by this Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31. The Opposite Parties failed to discharge their onus and we hence hold that the Complainant are 'Consumers' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act."
13. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble National Commission, it flows that it is for the Opposite Party to prove that the flat purchased was for commercial purpose, by way of some documentary proof and a mere bald statement is not sufficient to raise adverse inference against the Complainant.
14. In the present case, the Opposite Party has merely made a statement that the Complainant purchased the said flat for commercial purpose and on perusal of the record before us, we fail to find any material which shows that the Complainant is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses and/or plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by sale of such flats. Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint. Consequently, the objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Party is answered in the negative.
15. The next question for consideration before us is whether the complainant has cause of action to approach this commission?
ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 14 C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
16. To deal with is issue, it is imperative to refer to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides as under:
24A. Limitation period. --
(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the Complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
17. Perusing the above statutory provision of law, it is clear that the complaint shall be filed before the State Commission within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. It is clear from the record that till date neither possession of the said flat has been delivered nor the amount has been refunded to the Complainant by the Opposite Party. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Mehnga Singh Khera and Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. as reported in I (2020) CPJ 93 (NC), wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"It is a settled legal proposition that failure to give possession of flat is continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action and as long as the possession is not delivered to the buyers, they have every cause, grievance and right to approach the consumer courts."
ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 14 C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
18. Relying on the above settled law, it is clear that failure to deliver possession being a continuous wrong constitutes a recurrent cause of action in favor of the buyer and therefore, till the time possession is not delivered to the Complainant, he is within right to file the present complaint before this commission.
19. The Opposite Party contended that the jurisdiction of this Commission would be barred in view of the fact that the present complaint is in fact a suit for recovery on which court fees is payable and would lie in a Civil Court and the Complainant in order to save the payment of court fees has filed the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, the complicated question of facts and law which have been raised in the present complaint can only be decided before the Civil Court.
20. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, came into being in order to protect the interests of Consumers who are affected by the acts of the service providers, who in order to attract the Consumers, tend to make lucrative offers but when it comes to actually providing the offered services, they take a step back.
21. Deficiency has been defined under section 2 sub-clause (g) which reads as follows:
"(2) (g)"deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;"
22. Returning to the facts of the present complaint, it is clear that the Complainant avail the services of the Opposite Party for a consideration. However, the Opposite Party failed to complete the said ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 14 C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
project, aggrieved by which, the Complainant has sought the refund of the amount paid by him. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to file the present complaint before this commission since the Complainant is aggrieved by the deficient services of the Opposite Party i.e., the failure of the Opposite Party to handover the possession of the said flat within prescribed time and it is only due to this reason, that the refund of the amount paid is sought from the Opposite Party, which this Commission is authorised to adjudicate.
23. Our view is further fortified by the dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. v. Union Of India and Ors. Etc., reported at AIR 2012 SC 2369, wherein it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a shop constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression 'service' of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes 'service' within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and any deficiency or defect in such service would make it accountable before the competent consumer forum at the instance of consumers.
24. Moreover, nothing cogent has been brought on record by the Opposite Party which would reflect that there are such complicated questions involved which could not be settled on the basis of the pleadings filed on behalf of the contesting parties. Consequently, we are of the view that the present complaint falls within the four corners of the jurisdiction of this commission and there is no bar with respect to the jurisdiction of this commission to entertain cases related to the refund of amount deposited with the Opposite Party.
ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 14 C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
25. Having discussed the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the Opposite Party, the next issue which arises is whether the Opposite Party is actually deficient in providing its services to the Complainant. The expression Deficiency of Service has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported at 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544, wherein it has been discussed as follows:
"23. .......The expression deficiency of services is defined in Section 2 (1) (g) of the CP Act 1986 as:
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
24. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression 'service' in Section 2(1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 14 C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the Opposite Party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation."
26. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer to Clause 10 (a) of the Flat Buyer agreement dated 06.06.2007 entered into by both the contesting parties. It reflects that the Opposite Party was bound to complete the construction of the said flat within 36 months with grace period of 6 months from the date of commencement of construction of the particular block in which flat is located. However, the Opposite Party failed to hand over the possession of the said flat to the Complainant till date.
27. Furthermore, it has been well settled that the Complainant cannot be expected to wait for an indefinite time period to get the benefits of the ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 14 C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025 LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
hard-earned money which they have spent in order to purchase the property in question (Ref: Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima reported at (2018) 5 SCC 442).
28. 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 completing the construction of the said flat and kept the hard-earned money of the Complainant for years.
29. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the extensive law as discussed above, we direct the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant i.e., Rs. 14,20,814.06/- along with simple interest as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till 15.12.2025 (being the date of the present judgment);
B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Party pays the entire amount on or before 15.02.2026;
C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Party fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 15.02.2026, the entire amount is to be refunded along with an interest @ 9% p.a. calculated from the date on which each installment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till the actual realization of the amount.
ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 14 C. NO. 1654/2018 D.O.D.: 15.12.2025
LATE MRS. ANITA BABBAR VS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS. LTD.
30. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of A. Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the Complainant; and B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.
31. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
32. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
33. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT BIMLA KUMARI MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
15.12.2025 LR-ZA ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 14