2022 Supreme(SC) 317

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
UDAY UMESH LALIT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sushma Ashok Shiroor – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 6044, 7149 of 2019
Decided On : 07-04-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Consumer Protection Act and RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other – They are concurrent remedies operating independently and without primacy.
(2) For interest payable on amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from date of deposit of amounts.

Headnote:

(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – Section 18 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 3{Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 100} – Concurrent remedies – Consumer Protection Act and RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other – They are concurrent remedies operating independently and without primacy – When Statutes provisioning judicial remedies fall for construction, choice of interpretative outcomes should also depend on constitutional duty to create effective judicial remedies in furtherance of access to justice – A meaningful interpretation that effectuates access to justice is a constitutional imperative and it is this duty that must inform interpretative criterion – When Statutes provide more than one judicial Fora for effectuating a right or to enforce a duty-obligation, it is a feature of remedial choices offered by State for an effective access to justice – While interpreting statutes provisioning plurality of remedies, it is necessary for Courts to harmonise provisions in a constructive manner. (Paras 14.1 and 14.2)

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 14 and 23 {Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67} – Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 – Section 18 – Apartment Buyers Agreement – Unjustifiable delay in delivering apartment – Direction by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for refund of amount with interest – Commission is correct in its approach in holding that clauses of agreement are one-sided and that Consumer is not bound to accept possession of apartment and can seek refund of amount deposited by her with interest – Power to direct refund of amount and to compensate a consumer for deficiency in not delivering apartment as per terms of Agreement is within jurisdiction of Consumer Courts – Commission is empowered to direct refund of price or charges paid by consumer – A consumer invoking jurisdiction of Commission can seek such reliefs as he/she considers appropriate – A consumer can pray for refund of money with interest and compensation – Consumer could also ask for possession of apartment with compensation – Consumer can also make prayer for both in alternative – If a consumer prays for refund of amount, without an alternative prayer, Commission will recognize such a right and grant it, subject to merits of case – If a consumer seeks alternative reliefs, Commission will consider the matter in facts and circumstances of case and will pass appropriate orders as justice demands – Freedom to choose necessary relief is of Consumer and it is duty of Courts to honour it – Consumer in present case prayed for solitary relief for return of amount paid towards purchase of apartment without a prayer for alternate relief – Commission has correctly exercises its power and jurisdiction in passing directions for refund of amount with interest. (Paras 10, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 144 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 {Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67} – Apartment Buyers Agreement – Unjustifiable delay in delivering apartment – Direction by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for refund of amount with interest – For interest payable on amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from date of deposit of amounts – Commission in order impugned has granted interest from date of last deposit – This does not amount to restitution – Interest on refund shall be payable from dates of deposit – 9% interest granted by Commission is fair and just and no reason to interfere in appeal filed by Consumer for enhancement of interest. (Paras 22.1 and 22.2)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arise out of judgment dated 19.06.2019 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission directed the Appellant- Developer to refund an amount of Rs. 2,06,41,379 with interest @ 9% p.a. to Respondent-Consumer for its failure to deliver possession of apartment within the time stipulated as per the Apartment Buyers Agreement.

Findings of Court:

Appellant-Developer deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the registry of this Court as per proviso to Section 23 of the Act. This amount shall be made over to the Respondent-Consumer, to be adjusted against final amount payable by the Developer to the Consumer.

Result : Civil Appeal filed by Appellant Developer dismissed and Civil Appeal filed by Consumer allowed in part.