Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Vidya And Others – Appellants
Versus
M/S Parsvnath Developers Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8985 of 2022
Decided On : 29-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67 – Real estate – Flat Buyer Agreement – ‘Construction Linked Payment Plan’ – Halt in construction and delay in delivery of possession – Complaint partly allowed by National Commission with costs of Rs. 1 lakh – Facts of the case show that project was delayed inordinately – Complainants-appellants were made to suffer for long, for no fault of them – In spite of making entire payment, they were deprived of possession within stipulated time – Commission has rightly directed respondent-Developer to refund entire amount deposited by complainants-appellants – However, Commission was not justified in facts of the case to award a lesser interest than even the one agreed upon in Agreement – Commission ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum in view of clause 7(b) of Agreement – Direction made by Commission for refund of entire amount deposited by complainants-appellants upheld – However, direction with regard to interest modified to the extent that it shall be paid at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of respective deposit till date of refund. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges order dated 29th September, 2022 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Consumer Case No. 1557 of 2016 wherein Commission partly allowed the complaint preferred by complainants-appellants herein and directed the sole respondent herein, to refund the entire sum deposited by complainants-appellants with 9% interest.
Findings of Court:
Unpaid amount shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of this Judgment.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal challenges the order dated 29th September, 2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) in Consumer Case No. 1557 of 2016 wherein the Commission partly allowed the complaint preferred by the complainants-appellants herein and directed the sole respondent herein, to refund the entire sum deposited by the complainants-appellants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from the date of the said order.
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
2.1. M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Developer’), a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and engaged in the business of development and construction of inter alia residential projects as well as projects for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, launched a group housing project (hereinafter referred to as ‘the project’) titled ‘Parsvnath Paramount’ at Subhash Nagar (near Subhash Nagar Metro Station), New Delhi in the year 2008 and widely publicized the same.
2.2. Upon gaining knowledge of the project, the complainants-appellants booked a 3BHK flat in the said project and to that end, deposited a sum of Rs.16,03,066/- on 15th July, 2008. Subsequently, the complainants-appellants paid second instalment of an identical sum on 14th August, 2008.
2.3. Subsequently, the complainants-appellants and the respondent-Developer entered into a Flat Buyer Agreement (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’) on 10th October, 2008 and in furtherance of the same, the complainants appellants were allotted Flat No. 301 situated in Tower 3 of the project, which had an approximate area of 1805 sq. ft. The total payable price of the flat was determined to be Rs. 1,28,24,525/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 7105/- per sq. ft. of the saleable/super built-up area. An additional sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was to be paid for the mandatory covered car parking space in the concerned tower. Clause 11(a) of the Agreement clarified that the construction of the flat would be completed within a period of 30 months of commencement of construction of the particular Tower in which the flat was located, with a further grace period of 6 months.
2.4. The complainants-appellants opted for a ‘Construction Linked Payment Plan’ under which 25% of the sale price was payable within 30 days of booking, 60% of the sale price and the additional sum for the covered car parking space was payable in 6 installments and 15% of the sale price was payable in another 3 installments. In pursuance of the same, the complainants-appellants paid a total sum of Rs.1,30,62,971/- in the intervening period between 15th July, 2008 and 21st December, 2013, as per the demand of the respondent-Developer. The aforesaid amount deposited by the complainants-appellants amounted to about 95% of the total sale price of the flat.
2.5. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Developer unilaterally transferred the said Flat No. 301 situated in Tower 3, which had been initially allotted to the complainants-appellants, to Flat No. 702 situated in Tower 2, admeasuring 1942 sq. ft., in April, 2011.
2.6. Subsequently, the respondent-Developer raised a demand for the payment of VAT amounting to Rs. 60,141/- which was duly paid by the complainants-appellants on 29th January, 2014. A second payment of an identical sum was made on 13th March, 2014.
2.7. In the interregnum, the period of 36 months set out in the Agreement, including the grace period of 6 months, had expired.
2.8. On failure of the respondent-Developer to handover the possession of the flat within the expected deadline, despite timely payments, the complainants-appellants made several attempts to contact the respondent-Developer to enquire about the progress of the project but received no substantial update. Thereafter, the complainants-appellants visite
LAW POINT Global recession – Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession and the act of the Opposite Party in relying on global recession while retaining the amou....
Wait indefinitely – Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the booked Flat, as even till date the construction is incomplete.
(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.
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) Arbitration Clause in the Agreement does not bar jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain the Complaint2) No hesitation in holding that terms of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement were wholly one-s....
Dotted lines - A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder.
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
