Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Vs.
D.S. Dhanda, Etc.Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 3623-3654 of 2019)
With
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Vs.
Sudesh Goyal, Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4942-4945 2019 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 4363-4366 of 2019)
Decided On : 10-05-2019
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) and 14(1)(d) – Real estate – Booking of built-up flat – Delay in delivery of possession of escalation free flats – There is no surviving dispute in respect of extended period of handing over possession available to Appellant – It is categorical stand of Appellant that flats have been completed and occupation certificate obtained from Office of Director, Town and Country Planning Department of State of Haryana – NCDRC rightly held that compensation for loss, mental agony, litigation expenses and hardship, uncertainty and helplessness can neither be meagre nor exorbitant but has to be just and commensurate with loss and injury – NCDRC thereafter awarded interest on amount deposited by complainants at maximum rate of interest on which House Building Loans are granted by nationalized Bank, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per year from assured date of handing over possession to actual date of compensation and another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost of litigation. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) and 14(1)(d) – Real estate – Booking of built-up flat – Delay in delivery of possession of escalation free flats – District Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 19864 is empowered to order opposite party to pay such amount as may be awarded as compensation to consumer for any loss or injury suffered by consumer due to negligence of opposite party including to grant punitive damages – But Fora under the Act cannot award interest and/or compensation by applying rule of thumb – Order to grant interest at maximum of rate of interest charged by nationalised bank for advancing home loan is arbitrary and no nexus with default committed – Appellant has agreed to deliver constructed flats – For delay in handing over possession, consumer is entitled to consequences agreed at the time of executing buyer’s agreement – There cannot be multiple heads to grant of damages and interest when parties have agreed for payment of damages at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month – Once parties agreed for a particular consequence of delay in handing over of possession then, there has to be exceptional and strong reasons for SCDRC/NCDRC to award compensation at more than agreed rate – Though 1986 Act empowers authorities to award compensation for any loss or injury including building damages but order of NCDRC or that of SCDRC of awarding compensation is without any foundation being laid down by complainant on judicially recognised principles and is by rule of thumb – SCDRC as well as NCDRC awarded compensation under different heads on account of singular default of not handing over possession – Such award under various heads in respect of same default is not sustainable – Complainant is entitled to interest from Appellant for not handing over possession as projected as is offered by it but it is not a case to award special punitive damages as one of causes for late delivery of possession was beyond control of Appellant – Rate of interest modified to 9%. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19 and 23)
Facts of Case:
Complainant book a built up flat. Buyer’s Agreement was executed and possession of unit was contemplated to be delivered within 24 months from date of execution of agreement i.e. up to 10.2.2013 failing which Appellant was liable to pay Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month for the period of delay. Complaints were filed before SCDRC alleging delay in delivery of possession of escalation free flats and compensation on account of delay in handing over possession including mental agony and litigation expenses. present appeals are directed against orders passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 disposing 16 First Appeals wherein appeals filed by Appellant were decided by partially modifying order passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein SCDRC directed Appellant to hand over physical possession of units allotted to respondents (Complainants), complete in all respects within a period of four months.
Findings of Court:
Grant of interest at the rate of 15% by SCDRC is highly excessive. Since in other two set of appeals decided earlier, this Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on amount of refund, therefore, order of SCDRC stand modified so as to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date of deposit till date of refund.
Result : Impugned Judgment modified.
JUDGMENT :
Hemant Gupta, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4910-4941 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 3623-3654 OF 2019)
Leave granted.
2. The present appeals are directed against orders dated 24.10.2018 & 12.12.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [NCDRC] disposing 16 First Appeals wherein the appeals filed by the Appellant were decided by partially modifying the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on [SCDRC] 02.06.2016 wherein SCDRC directed the Appellant to hand over the physical possession of the units allotted to the respondents (Complainants), complete in all respects within a period of four months. However, for facility of reference, facts are taken from the complaint filed by Shri D.S. Dhanda. The SCDRC issued the following directions:
“Consumer Complaint bearing No. 94 of 2016, titled as D.S. Dhanda Vs DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-
1. To hand over physical possession of the unit, allotted in favour of the complainant, complete in all respects, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, to the complainant, within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amount, legally due against him.
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, within one month from the date of handling over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration charges and stamp duty, by the complainant, directly to the Registering Authorities concerned.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @ 12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant, from 10.02.2014(promised date in view of the extension sought vide letter dated 05.06.2013 i.e. 12 months after the stipulated date as per Agreement i.e. from 10.02.2013) to 31.05.2016, within 2 months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @ 15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount, due to the complainant w.e.f. 01.06.2016, onwards (per month) by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @ 15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till the delivery of possession.
5. To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount, due to the complainant w.e.f. 01.06.2016, onwards (per month) by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @ 15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till the delivery of possession.
6. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-, to the complainant, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.”
3. The Appellant preferred appeal against such order passed by SCDRC before the NCDRC. The NCDRC issued inter-alia the following directions:
“(C) Compensation:
The compensation for loss and injury, for mental agony and physical harassment, hardship and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness, can be neither meagre nor exorbitant, but has to be just and equitable, commensurate with the loss and injury (note: it could be less than or more than what the complainant asked for or what the State Commission determined, at the considered wisdom of the adjudicating authority/court in the facts and specificities of the case).
And it is always desirable and preferable, to the extent feasible and appropriate in the facts and specificities of a case, that some objective logical criteria be identified and adopted to determine the compensation. The compensation cannot be arbitrary or whimsical, some reasonable and acceptable rational has to be evident subjectivity has to be minimized.
We note that the State Commission has gi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
