Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 214

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR – Appellant
VERSUS
SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR. ETC. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2285-2330 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.928-930, 932 TO 938, 940 TO 967 AND 969 TO 976 of 2019)
With
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR - Petitioner
VERSUS
MRIDULA SOOD ETC - Respondent
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.931, 939 AND 968 OF 2019
With
RAVI DATT AGGARWAL AND ORS. - Appellants
VERSUS
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD. AND ORS. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2354 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26519 of 2018)
Decided on : 26-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s Karanjawala & Co.
For the Respondent:Monika Gusain, Jinendra Jain, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Siddharth Batra, Ankur Bansal, Anand Shankar Jha, Sweta Rani, Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, Astha Tyagi, Amarjeet Singh, Siddharth Mittal, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Refund of money – Parties must be left to agitate this issue in a properly instituted matter before a competent court

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – Real estate – Booking of Apartments – State Commission allowed complaints and directed refund of amounts deposited by concerned Complainants with interest – Award passed by State Commission confirmed by National Commission – On strength of this order and upon proper identification to satisfaction of State Commission, amounts standing in Fixed Deposit Receipts against each of Complainant along with interest accrued thereon, be made over to said complainant within six weeks – Developer directed to make over to each complainant amount in Column No.17 marked as “Amount Recoverable/Payable” within six weeks – In two cases where excess amount has been deposited, Developer will be entitled to have such excess amount recovered from amounts presently lying in deposit – In one claim case, widow and mother are individually claiming refund of amount deposited by him – At this stage, entitlement of either side cannot be gone into and parties must be left to agitate this issue in a properly instituted matter before a competent court – However, considering fact that mother, widow and two children, going by normal law relating to intestate succession for Hindus, would share property of deceased person equally, ¾ of sum to be made over to widow who shall take said sum for herself and on behalf of two children while remaining ¼ of sum shall be made over to mother – They must execute indemnity bonds agreeing to return sum that they had received in whole or in part, in case a declaration as to their entitlement by a competent court were to go against them. (Paras 15 to 18)
       Facts of Case:
       Original complainants had booked apartments in a project titled “DLF Valley, Panchkula” situated in Panchkula, Haryana, which was to be developed by Developer. Developer had promised to handover possession within 24 months from the date of signing of agreement. Various complaints came to be filed by Complainants submitting that despite period of two years being over there was no substantial progress and as such, Developer was deficient in rendering service. Some of Complainants prayed for refund of all the moneys they had deposited from time to time along with interest and compensation while others sought relief in nature of compensation for delayed delivery of possession but insisted that possession of apartments be handed over to them.
       Findings of Court:
       It is directed that, on strength of this order and upon proper identification to satisfaction of State Commission, amounts standing in Fixed Deposit Receipts against each of Complainant along with interest, if any, accrued thereon be made over to said complainant within six weeks from today. We also direct Developer to make over to each complainant the amount in Column No.17 marked as “Amount Recoverable/Payable” within six weeks. In two cases i.e. in appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)Nos.928 of 2019 and 936 of 2019 where excess amount has been deposited, Developer will be entitled to have such excess amount recovered from amounts presently lying in deposit.
       Result : Appeals disposed of in terms.

JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted in all matters, except Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.931 of 2019, 939 of 2019 and 968 of 2019.

Re: Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.928-976 of 2019 (DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. Through its Authorised Signatory Mr. Shiv Kumar v. Sushila Devi and another, Appeals by the Developer

[Except Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.931 of 2019, 939 of 2019 and 968 of 2019]

2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the National Commission’) in First Appeal Nos.382/2016, 447/2016, 453/2017, 648/2016, 649/2016, 650/2016, 651/2016, 767/2016, 879/2016, 881/2016, 1145/2016, 1146/2016, 1147/2016, 1349/2016, 1351/2016, 1579/2016, 1580/2016, 1586/2016, 1587/2016, 1158/2016, 1315/2016, 1347/2016, 1348/2016, 1352/2016, 1576/2016, 1577/2016, 1578/2016, 1581/2016, 1582/2016, 1583/2016, 1584/2016, 1589/2016, 1590/2016, 1591/2016, 1592/2016, 1593/2016, 1594/2016, 1595/2016, 1598/2016, 1599/2016, 1600/2016, 1601/2016, 1622/2016, 1623/2016, 1625/2016 and 1643/2017.

3. The original complainants had booked apartments in a project titled “DLF Valley, Panchkula” situated in Panchkula, Haryana, which was to be developed by the Developer. The Developer had promised to handover possession within 24 months from the date of signing of the agreement. Various complaints came to be filed by the Complainants submitting that despite period of two years being over there was no substantial progress and as such, the Developer was deficient in rendering service. Some of the Complainants prayed for refund of all the moneys they had deposited from time to time along with interest and compensation while others sought relief in the nature of compensation for delayed delivery of possession but insisted that the possession of the apartments be handed over to them.

4. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) by its various orders allowed the complaints and directed refund of the amounts deposited by the concerned Complainants with interest @ 15% per annum in some cases and with lesser rate in others and compensation. Similar directions were passed in cases of delayed delivery of possession. These orders passed by the State Commission were challenged by the Developer by filing aforementioned First Appeals in the National Commission which were disposed of by the National Commission vide its common order dated 07.09.2018. The National Commission affirmed the view taken by the State Commission and dismissed all the appeals. Aggrieved thereby the present appeals by special leave were filed by the Developer.

Re: Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26519 of 2018 (Ravi Datt Aggarwal and others v. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and others, Appeals by original Complainants

5. While the appeals as aforesaid were pending before the National Commission, it was submitted by the Developer that there had to be at least one Judicial Member on the Bench and in cases where there was not even one Judicial Member on the Bench, the appeals could not and ought not to be proceeded with. After hearing all submissions, the National Commission by its order dated 01.08.2018 reserved the matters for orders. Thereafter, Review Petitions were filed by the Developer which were rejected on 08.08.2018. The Developer then filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution being CM(M)No.951 of 2018 in the High Court of Delhi questioning said orders dated 01.08.2018 and 08.08.2018. While issuing notice, the High Court by its order dated 20.08.2018 stayed the operation of the order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the National Commission. The National Commission, thereafter, passed a reasoned judgment on 07.09.2018 rejecting all the submissions. However, in view of the fact that the order dated 08.08.2018 was staye

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 214

IMPORTANT POINTRefund of money – Parties must be left to agitate this issue in a properly instituted matter before a competent court

IMPORTANT POINT
Refund of money – Parties must be left to agitate this issue in a properly instituted matter before a competent court