2024 Supreme(SC) 152

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Venkataraman Krishnamurthy and another - Appellants
Versus
Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 971 of 2023
Decided on : 22-02-2024

IMPORTANT POINT
Apartment Buyers Agreement – Once parties committed themselves to a written contract, whereby they reduced terms and conditions agreed upon by them to writing, same would be binding upon them – In the event such a written contract provided for consequences that are to follow in the event of breach of conditions by one or other of parties thereto, such consequences must necessarily follow and if resisted, they would be legally enforceable – NCDRC cannot rewrite terms and conditions of contract between parties and apply its own subjective criteria to determine course of action to be adopted by either of them.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Real estate – Apartment Buyers Agreement – Non-delivery of possession within stipulated date – Appellants are claiming termination of agreement and unconditional refund of total amount paid by them with interest thereon – ‘Part Occupancy Certificate’ obtained by respondent-company cannot be equated to ‘Occupancy Certificate’ issued under Regulation 6(7) of Development Control Regulations, 1991 – Once parties committed themselves to a written contract, whereby they reduced terms and conditions agreed upon by them to writing, same would be binding upon them – In the event such a written contract provided for consequences that are to follow in the event of breach of conditions by one or other of parties thereto, such consequences must necessarily follow and if resisted, they would be legally enforceable – In case on hand, Agreement stipulated date of delivery of possession of apartment for fit outs with a grace period of one year – Right of election given thereunder to appellants to either continue or to terminate Agreement within ninety days from expiry of grace period was absolute and it was not open to NCDRC to apply its own standards and conclude that, though there was delay in handing over possession of apartment, such delay was not unreasonable enough to warrant cancellation of Agreement – It was not for NCDRC to rewrite terms and conditions of contract between parties and apply its own subjective criteria to determine course of action to be adopted by either of them – Contract, being a creature of an agreement between two or more parties, is to be interpreted giving actual meaning to words contained in contract and it is not permissible for Court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if parties have not made it themselves. (Paras 12, 15, 16 and 17)

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Real estate – Apartment Buyers Agreement – Non-delivery of possession within stipulated date – Mere exchange of correspondence by and between parties prior to expiry of grace period, when appellants were not even seized of all facts, cannot be held against them by treating it as an act in acceptance of or acquiescence with change impliedly suggested by respondent-company – Fact that appellants were anxious to avoid additional tax liability, owing to introduction of Goods and Service Tax regime, cannot be held against them or be imputed to them as an underhand motive for backing out of Agreement – Avoidance of tax is neither illegal nor equivalent to tax evasion – NCDRC overstepped its power and jurisdiction in ignoring binding covenants in Agreement and in introducing its own logic and rationale to decide as to what future course of action of parties and more particularly, appellants, should be – Respondent-company directed to refund deposited amount alongwith 12% simple interest – Agreement itself provided for interest component on refund amount and stipulated rate thereof as 12% p.a. – That being so, respondent-company cannot seek reduction of rate of interest contrary to agreed rate. (Paras 19, 20, 21 and 22)

Facts of the case:

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC), decided Consumer Complaint No. 35 of 2018, vide order dated 09.11.2022. Disgruntled with said order, complainants therein preferred this statutory appeal. Appellants assert their right to terminate Agreement and claim unconditional refund of the total amount paid by them with interest thereon.

Findings of Court:

As appellants did not choose to act upon belated offer of the respondent-company, in its letter dated 29.11.2017, and are still intent on terminating Agreement as per Clause 11.3 of Agreement, we set aside the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the NCDRC and allow Consumer Complaint No. 35 of 2018, directing respondent-company to refund deposited amount of Rs.2,25,31,148/-in twelve equal monthly installments, through post-dated cheques, with simple interest thereon @ 12% p.a., from date of receipt of the said amount or parts thereof till actual repayment. First such installment shall be payable on the 5th of April, 2024, and the succeeding installments shall be payable on the fifth of each calendar month thereafter, till fully paid.

Result : Appeal allowed.