SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Parsvnath Developers Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Gagandeep Brar and Another - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6380 of 2021 with Civil Appeal Nos. 6383, 6385 & 6384 of 2021 (preferred by Parsvnath Developers Ltd.) & Civil Appeal Nos. 6382 & 6381 of 2021 (preferred by Chandigarh Housing Board)
Decided On : 13-04-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Flat Buyer Agreement – Delay in allotment of flats to allottees – Principal amount as well as the interest in terms of order(s) of State Commission have been paid to respective complainants/allottees – Award passed by Arbitrator has attained finality – State Commission as well as National Commission have seriously erred in fastening entire liability to pay compensation solely upon appellant-developer – Compensation in terms of clause 9(c) of Flat Buyer Agreement is to be shared between developer and CHB in ratio of 70:30 as apportioned/determined by sole Arbitrator – Impugned orders passed by National Commission and that of State Commission are required to be modified to the extent holding appellant-developer liable to pay compensation under clause 9(c) of Flat Buyer Agreement to the extent of 70% and 30% liability would be upon Chandigarh Housing Board. (Paras 5 to 10)
Facts of the case:
Being aggrieved by the common order dated 05.03.2013 passed by National Commission, appellant filed Special Leave Petition bearing S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 17133-17134 of 2013 and connected matters. This Court vide order dated 10.05.2013 issued notice and stayed the operation of the judgment and order dated 05.03.2013 of the National Commission in part to the extent of the payment of compensation under clause 9(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement.
Findings of Court:
Impugned orders passed by the National Commission and that of the State Commission are required to be modified to the extent holding the appellant – developer liable to pay compensation under clause 9(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement to the extent of 70% and 30% liability would be upon the Chandigarh Housing Board. Present appeals preferred by the appellant – developer are to be allowed to the aforesaid extent and the appeals preferred by CHB are required to be disposed of in such terms.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘National Commission’) passed in the respective Appeal Executions dismissing the same, the developer – Parsvnath Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ’Developer’) has preferred four appeals bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 6380/2021, 6383/2021, 6385/2021 & 6384/2021.
1.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders dated 04.10.2017 passed by the National Commission in I.A. Nos. 14331 & 14332 of 2017 (for modification) dismissing the said applications, the Chandigarh Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CHB’) has preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 6382 and 6381 of 2021.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:
That the Chandigarh Administration on 01.12.2005 appointed CHB as the nodal agency for development of residential, commercial and other related infrastructure facilities as an integrated project at Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technological Park in Chandigarh by the name “Pride Asia”. The bid of the appellant – developer was accepted by the CHB. Consequently, CHB and the developer entered into a Development Agreement dated 06.10.2006 for grant of development rights in respect of land measuring 123 acres. The said land was allotted to the appellant – developer by CHB for constructing residential units, who then advertised its project for the sale of flats and pent houses in the name and style as “Parsvnath Pride Asia”.
2.1 The respective private respondents applied for allotment of apartments in the said project. Later, Tripartite Agreements were executed between the Developer, CHB and the private respondents/flat owners/allottees. Clause 9(a) of the said agreement provided that the construction of the flats was likely to be completed within 36 months from the date of signing of the Development Agreement between CHB and the appellant, i.e., 06.10.2006. That the appellant could not carried out the construction as, according to the appellant, the CHB failed to handover the possession of the unencumbered land to it for raising the construction.
2.2 A dispute arose between the appellant – developer and the CHB and in terms of the development agreement, the dispute was referred to the arbitrator. A former Judge of this Court was appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the appellant and the CHB.
2.3 Pending arbitral proceedings, due to delay in allotment of the flats to the allottees, the allottees filed individual complaints before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘District Forum’), the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘State Commission’) and before the National Commission. The District Forum and the State Commission allowed a batch of almost 75 complaints which were impugned before the National Commission by way of First Appeal No. 269 of 2012 and other connected appeals and the revision petitions, which were disposed of by the National Commission vide its common order dated 05.03.2013. The National Commission modified the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission to the extent that it had directed payment of uniform rate of interest to the allottees, i.e., 9%. Insofar as the payment of compensation under clause 9(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement was concerned, the National Commission directed that the payment of compensation be made by way of interim measure, subject to final outcome of the arbitration proceedings between the appellant and the CHB.
2.4 Being aggrieved by the common order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the National Commission, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition bearing S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 17133-17134 of 2013 and connected matters. This Court vide order dated 10.05.2013 issued notice and stayed the operation of the judgment and order dated 05.03.2013 of the National Commission in part to
Chandigarh Housing Board v. M/s Parasvanath Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Compensation has to be paid in terms of agreement between parties.
(1) Justified Withholding of Payments – An allottee is not necessarily “at fault” for stopping installments if it is evident that the builder is nowhere near completing the project by the committed d....
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of timely possession despite substantial payment – Payment of interest on refund of principal amount is necessary.
Provisions of Order XXI of CPC are applicable to decrees of civil court – They embody a sound policy principle that if amount is deposited or paid to decree holder or person entitled to it, person en....
(1) Nature of dispute having originated from a consumers’ grievance, role of Court has to be beyond just being an adjudicatory forum in an adversarial cause, and must have an element of proactivity i....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.