IMPORTANT POINT
Builder would be liable to pay interest to the purchaser from the due date of handing over possession to the date he was actually ready to deliver possession.

JUDGMENT

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

1. The present Civil Appeals have been filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Section 23. Appeal – Any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission in exercise of its power conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 21, may prefer an appeal against such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the order:
Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.
] to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2018 in Review Application No. 94 of 2018 and the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2018 in Consumer Complaint No. 708 of 2017 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi.

2. The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, is as under:

2.1. The Appellant – Builder was developing a project named ‘Capetown’ in Sector 74, Noida. The Respondent – Purchaser booked a residential flat with the Appellant – Builder in the said project.

2.2. On 22.05.2012, the Appellant – Builder vide Allotment Letter allotted Flat No. 1606 to the Respondent – Purchaser. As per the Allotment Letter, possession would be handed over in October 2013. This period could be extended due to unforeseen circumstances by a maximum of 6 months.

The Agreement also provided for escalation charges if there was any fluctuation in the price of construction materials and/or labour costs during the course of construction, payable by the Respondent – Purchaser.

The Agreement provided for payment of maintenance charges by the Respondent – Purchaser for maintenance and upkeep of the complex. These maintenance charges were payable from the date of issuance of a ‘Letter of Offer of Possession’.

2.3. The Appellant – Builder was not able to hand over possession of the flat in October 2013 as per the Allotment Letter dated 22.05.2012.

2.4. The Appellant – Builder issued a Pre-Possession Letter on 12.10.2015 to the Respondent – Purchaser for completion of formalities, before possession could be handed over. The Pre-Possession Letter stated that upon completion of formalities as specified in the Letter, possession of the flat would be offered to the Respondent – Purchaser. The Respondent – Purchaser was called upon to pay Rs. 12,35,656/– towards the balance cost of the flat, maintenance charges, labour welfare charges, water connection charges, escalation costs, etc. The Respondent – Purchaser was called upon to deposit the charges on or before 11.11.2015.

2.5. The Respondent – Purchaser failed to pay the charges demanded as per the Pre-Possession Letter by the Appellant – Builder.

2.6. That after over 15 months, on 15.03.2017, the Respondent – Purchaser filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Section 21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission – Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a) to entertain—

(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any,

claimed exceeds rupees one crore; and

(ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and

(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.] before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”]. The Respondent – Purchaser challenged the Pre-Possession Letter on the ground that on the date of issuance of the Pre-Possession Letter, the Appellant – Builder had not obtained the Occupancy Certificate. The Re