Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
Marvel Omega Builders Pvt. Ltd. And anr. – Appellants
Versus
Shrihari Gokhale And Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3207-3208 of 2019
Decided on : 30-07-2019
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – Booking of residential Villa – Denial of possession despite substantial payment – National Commission awarded refund of entire principal amount of Rs.8.14 crores to complainants, along with compensation in form of 10% simple interest as well as sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation – When matters were taken up, Counsel appearing for Appellants submitted that Villa was ready in all respects and Completion Certificate would be obtained within 21 days – Against total consideration of Rs.8.31 crores, Respondents had paid Rs.8.14 crores by November, 2013 – Though Appellants had undertaken to complete villa by 31.12.2014, they failed to discharge obligation – There was total failure on part of Appellants and they were deficient in rendering service in terms of obligations that they had undertaken – Even assuming that Villa is now ready for occupation, delay of almost five years is a crucial factor and bargain cannot now be imposed upon Respondents – Respondents were justified in seeking refund of amounts that they had deposited with reasonable interest on deposited amount – Findings rendered by Commission cannot be said to be incorrect or unreasonable on any count – Villa in question shall not be sold nor any third party rights can be created by Appellants in respect of said villa till decree in favour of Respondents is completely satisfied and so long as decree remains to be satisfied, said villa shall be under attachment – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 7, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the Case:
Present appeals under Section 23 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are directed against (i) judgment and final order dated 31.05.2018 passed in Consumer Case No.2010 of 2016 and (ii) the order dated 05.09.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.578 of 2018 by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Findings of the Court:
Facts on record clearly indicate that as against the total consideration of Rs.8.31 crores, the Respondents had paid Rs.8.14 crores by November, 2013. Though the Appellants had undertaken to complete villa by 31.12.2014, they failed to discharge obligation. As late as on 28.05.2014, Revised Construction Schedule had shown the date of delivery of possession to be October, 2014. There was, thus, total failure on part of the Appellants and they were deficient in rendering service in terms of obligations that they had undertaken.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. These Appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are directed against (i) the judgment and final order dated 31.05.2018 passed in Consumer Case No.2010 of 2016 and (ii) the order dated 05.09.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.578 of 2018 by the Commission [National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi].
2. The Respondents had booked a residential villa viz: Emerald-07 in a project named ‘Marvel Selva Ridge Estate’ to be developed by the Appellants. The total consideration for the villa with three covered car parking spaces and open terrace was to be Rs.8,31,04,425/-. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 22.03.2013 incorporating mutual obligations and paras 5(a) and (b) thereof were as under:-
“5. The Promoter declares that:
(a) The said Unit shall be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved and sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Pune.
(b) Possession of the said Unit agreed to be purchased by the Purchaser/s shall be handed over to the Purchaser/s by the Promoter on or before 31.12.2014 provided that the Purchaser/s shall have made payment of the instalments towards the purchase price of the said Unit and other charges/ deposit/s as mentioned in Clauses 20 to 23 hereinbelow as agreed upon without delay at the times stipulated for payment therefore.”
3. It is a matter of record that during the period July, 2012 to November, 2013 the Respondents had deposited Rs.8.14 crores with the Appellants. Though the Appellants had agreed to deliver possession on or before 31.12.2014, neither the villa was complete by the due date nor was any refund made by the Appellants. It was the case of the Appellants that sometime in April, 2014 the Respondents had suggested extra work amounting to Rs.2,67,000/-and that Stop Work Notices were issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation on 23.07.2014 and 15.11.2014.
4. Since the possession of the villa was not delivered, the Respondents filed Complaint Case No.2010 of 2016 before the Commission praying inter alia for the following reliefs:-
“(a) Grant a sum of Rs.13,24,07,052/-(towards principal amount of Rs.8.14 crores paid towards purchase of villa along with compensation in the form of interest of Rs.5.1 crores) at the rate of 18% per annum calculated upto 31st October, 2016, along with pendente lite and future interest at the same rate or such higher rate of interest which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the interest of justice, from the date of making payments till the date of actual realisation of the payment.
(b) Grant cost of Litigation to the complainants.”
5. The matter was contested by the Appellants. The Commission observed that the additional work requested by the Respondents was of such nature that at best three months additional period could be granted for executing such extra work. It was observed that even till the filing of the Complaint, the possession of the villa was not offered to the Respondents and that if there were Stop Work Notices issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation, the Respondents could not in any way be held responsible for the same. While allowing the Complaint by its judgment and final order dated 31.05.2018, the Commission directed:-
“(i) The opposite party shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.8.14 crores to the complainants, along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund.
(ii) The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-as cost of litigation to the complainants.”
6. The Appellants thereafter filed Miscellaneous Application No.578 of 2018 seeking extension of time to comply with the aforementioned judgment and order passed by the Commission. Said Miscellaneous Application was rejected by the Commission vide its order dated 05.09.2018.
7. The aforesaid judgment and orders of the Commission are presently under challenge in these appeals, which were preferred w
SupremeToday
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
