Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
M/s. Ashoka Investment Co. – Appellant
Versus
M/s. United Towers India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4913 of 2015
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Real estate – Flat Buyers Agreement – Additional demand and cancellation of allotment by Builder – Refund with interest ordered by National Commission – NCDRC found fault on part of both parties – Appellant not approaching Commission with clean hands, with much delay and respondent conducting himself in a high handed and arbitrary manner – It accordingly disposed of complaint by directing respondents to refund amount along with 9% interest – No justification has come forward as to why awarded amount was not tendered to appellant – In fitness of things and in interest of both parties considering nature of agreement made and also their conduct that order of NCDRC requires to be modified – Respondent will refund total sale consideration to appellant along with 18% interest. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal by the Consumer under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 16.03.2015 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Original Petition No. 377 of 2000 between M/s. Ashoka Investment Company vs. M/s. United Towers India Pvt. Ltd. By said order, NCDRC directed respondents to refund amount of Rs. 4,95,000/- (four lakhs and ninety five thousand) being total sale consideration to appellant with interest @ 9 % per annum w.e.f. 17.01.1995 till the date of refund/compliance.
Findings of Court:
Under the agreement, in the event of default, appellant's liability to pay interest on defaulted amount could go up to 18%, it would be just and proper in the facts of the present case that 18% interest be awarded on the refund amount.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. This appeal by the Consumer under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 19861 [in short “the 1986 Act”] has been filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2 [in short “NCDRC”] Delhi in Original Petition No. 377 of 2000 between M/s. Ashoka Investment Company vs. M/s. United Towers India Pvt. Ltd. By the said order, the NCDRC directed the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 4,95,000/- (four lakhs and ninety five thousand) being total sale consideration to the appellant with interest @ 9 % per annum w.e.f. 17.01.1995 till the date of refund/compliance.
2. The admitted facts are that, the appellant on 12.05.1980 applied for purchase of two flats bearing Nos. 501 and 502 on the 5th Floor, 1st Block, Krishna Apartments, Bangalore for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,95,000/- (four lakhs and ninety five thousand). Along with the application, the appellant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) each for the two flats by way of two Demand-Drafts.
3. An agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 17.05.1980. As per Para-3 of the agreement, possession was to be delivered within a period of 18-21 months under normal conditions subject, however, to the availability of cement, steel and other building materials, electrical or power connections, drainage connection and subject to and including any Act of God, drought, flood or any other natural calamity and/or war restrictions by the Government, Municipal Corporation or any other public authorities or any other acts beyond the control of the builders.
4. Under paragraph 6 of the agreement, it is provided that if there was any default in payment of installments, the builder would be at liberty to insist for payment of the amount due together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment on the defaulted amount.
5. The entire amount of Rs. 4,95,000/- (four lakhs and ninety-five thousand) has since been paid by the appellant to the respondent. A dispute arose sometimes in 1991 when the respondent raised demand of Rs. 1,56,046/- (one lakh fifty six thousand and forty six) with respect to one apartment and Rs. 1,62,202/- (one lakh sixty two thousand and two hundred two) for the other apartment. These demands were raised vide bill dated 15.12.1991. These demands were objected to by the appellant and a request was made to hand over the possession of the two flats.
6. Apparently, possession was not given and, thereafter, it appears that in January, 1999, the appellant visited the apartments only to find that both the apartment Nos. 501 and 502 had been transferred by the respondent in favour of third parties. It was thereupon that the appellant made enquiries and came to know that the respondent had cancelled the allotment on 17.01.1995 and, thereafter, transferred it to the third parties.
7. After giving due notice, the appellant approached the NCDRC by way of a complaint praying for following reliefs:
“(a) To direct the Opposite Party to forthwith hand over to the Complainant vacant and peaceful possession of the flats allotted to it being Flats No. 501 and 502, Krishna Apartments, Corporation No. 13, Ali Asker Road, in Corporation Division No. 59, Bangalore and to further pay a sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- towards delayed delivery till the date of the application together with damages in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as specified in Para-22 of the application.
(b) In the alternative to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 48,27,000/- as detailed in Paras 21 and 22 above, with pendente lite and further interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(c) Costs of and incidental to these proceedings be provided for.
(d) Such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed.”
8. The respondent contested the complaint on technical grounds as also on merit. According to the respondent, the appellant was not a
Flat Buyers Agreement – Rate of interest must be same for both parties.
Right to approach - Thus as long as the flat is not fully constructed and handed over in time, the person who booked the flat has the right to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grie....
(1) Plot Buyer Agreement – Objective of granting compensation cannot be altered such that it amounts to a windfall gain to other party – Before compensation can be granted by NCDRC, actual loss must ....
“A builder company cannot retain the amount deposited by a consumer indefinitely.”
(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 deposi....
Apartment Buyers Agreement – Cancellation of allotment – To justify forfeiture of advance money being part of “earnest money” terms of contract should be clear and explicit – Agreement is one-sided a....
The court affirmed entitlement to interest from deposit dates for delayed possession in consumer transactions, emphasizing the necessity of timely relief.
Interest – It is well established principle that the interest in the form of interest should be just and equitable and commensurate with the loss and injury.
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
