Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the Commisssion at Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
B.B. Patel and Others – Appellants
Versus
DLF Universal Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1106 of 2009
Decided On : 25-01-2022
(A) Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 – Sections 36-A, 36-B(a) and (d), 36-D and 36-E read with Sections 2(i) and 2(o) – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(r) – Real estate – Apartment Buyer’s Agreement – Unfair Trade Practice – Demand for extra charges – Respondent cancelled agreement as outstanding amount was not paid – There was no intention on part of appellants to insist on time being essence of contract as they did not terminate agreement due to delay in handing over possession of apartments – There has been no misrepresentation made by respondent amounting to unfair trade practice for delay in handing over possession of apartments – Extra cost demanded by respondent was incurred due to introduction of extra amenities – Imposition of extra charges is not a calculated and pre-planned design of respondent – Appellants are essentially seeking possession of apartments by declaration of termination of agreement by respondent to be void, without having to pay any money towards extra charges or even basic sale price – Compensation sought by appellants cannot be granted as Section 12-B of MRTP Act empowers Commission to grant compensation only when any loss or damage is caused to a consumer as a result of a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice – As appellants have failed to prove unfair trade practice on part of respondent, they are not entitled to any compensation – Respondent shall handover possession of flats to appellants on payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- for each flat by appellants. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26 and 27)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Grant of relief – Final relief granted by Apex Court need not be natural consequences of ratio decidendi of its judgment. (Para 26)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.01.2009 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi dismissing a complaint filed by the appellants under Sections 36-A, 36-B(a) and (d), 36-D and 36-E read with Sections 2(i) and 2(o) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.
Findings of Court:
Appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellants to pay Rs.25,00,000/- for each flat within a period of four weeks from today and the respondent shall handover possession of the flats to the appellants within a week from the date of payment.
Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.01.2009 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi dismissing a complaint filed by the appellants under Sections 36-A, 36-B(a) and (d), 36-D and 36-E read with Sections 2(i) and 2(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “MRTP Act”).
2. An advertisement was issued by the respondent proposing attractive schemes of payment for the sale of group housing apartments/flats namely “Beverly Park-I” at Qutab Enclave Complex in Gurgaon. According to one of the schemes, possession of the flats/apartments was to be handed over on payment of 40% of the cost of the flat within 2½ (two and half) years and the balance amount was to be paid within equated instalments over the next seven and half years. On 14.01.1993, the appellants applied for allotment of 4 apartments Nos. 404A, 404B, 406A and 406B in Tower No. 4, Windsor. By choosing the aforementioned option, the appellants sought to make payment for the apartments within a period of 10 years. According to the application form, possession was to be delivered to the appellants as “Licensees” for use and occupation on a monthly License Fee till the balance sale consideration was paid. Flats with super area of 270.35 sq. meter at the basic sale price of Rs. 7,525/- per sq. meter were allotted to the appellants. Apart from the basic sale price, External Development Charges (EDC) @ Rs. 376/- per sq. meter, construction deposit of Rs. 21.5 per sq. meter and lump-sum security of Rs. 15,000/- were to be paid by the appellants for each flat.
3. The Apartment Buyer Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “ABA”) was executed on 23.03.1993. The relevant clauses of the ABA are as under:
2(c). The Apartment Allottee shall pay a further sum of Rs..........(Rupees...............only) as preferential location charges as per schedule of payments (Annexure II) annexed hereto. However, if due to change in the layout plan and consequent change in the allotment of the Apartment, it ceases to be so located or there is a change in the preferential location before or after the registration of sale deed, the Company shall be liable only to refund without interest extra charges recovered for such preferential location or shall be entitled to recover extra preferential location charges as the case may be.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
4. The price of the Apartment stipulated hereinabove is based on the price of all materials and labour charges pertaining thereto ruling on the 1st day of January, 1993. If, however, during the progress of work, there is increase in the price of the materials used in the construction work and or labour charges on account of any reason statutory or otherwise, the cumulative effect of such increase as assessed by the Company and intimated to the Apartment Allottee shall be debited to Apartment Allottee’s account who shall pay the same on demand. The decision of the Company in this respect shall be final and binding on the Apartment Allottee. The increased incidence may be charged and recovered by the C
(1) MRTP Commission can grant compensation only when any loss or damage is caused to a consumer.(2) Final relief granted by Apex Court need not be natural consequences of ratio decidendi of its judgm....
(1) Bald assertion – In the absence of any evidence being brought on record, merely a bald assertion that the project was delayed due to in action by the Government or its statutory organisations and....
“Since the possession of subject flats were not delivered within the stipulated time, allottee held entitled for refund of amount deposited with interest.”
(1) Earing profits - The onus of establishing that the Complainant was dealing in real estate i.e. in the purchase and sale of plots/ flats in his normal course of business to earn profits, shifts to....
(1) Apartment Buyer’s Agreement – Developer cannot compel apartment buyers to be bound by one-sided contractual terms contained in Apartment Buyer’s Agreement.(2) Offer of possession without completi....
Installment – Once the instalments were collected, the buyers are sought to be non-suited on a multitude of grounds, primarily the liability of the Government in not providing infrastructure and to c....
Committed date - the committed date has to be reckoned from the date of the sanction of building plans which includes the date of approval of the fire safety scheme.
The execution of a conveyance deed and prior acceptance of compensation settle a builder-buyer dispute, preventing subsequent claims of deficiency despite contractual delays.
A developer's failure to deliver possession of a property by the agreed-upon date and the failure to provide promised common amenities constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice un....
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
