Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE, JJ.
Dharmendra Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Agra Development Authority – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2809-2810 Of 2024 With Civil Appeal No.6344 Of 2024
Decided On : 06-09-2024
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 23 and 24A [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 67 and 69] – Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 18 and 19 – Real estate – Apartment Buyer’s Agreement – Delay in delivery of possession of Apartment – Complaint was partly allowed by NCDRC – Claim for payment of interest from the date of deposit while refunding the same and not from date of complaint – Possession offered without requisite completion certificate is illegal and purchaser cannot be compelled to take possession in such circumstances – NCDRC correctly applied Sections 18 and 19 of Limitation Act, 1963, which extend limitation period where part payments or acknowledgments are made – Cause of action continued to exist and filing of complaint is within limitation period – However, appellant delayed making balance payment for over five years – This delay was largely due to appellant’s requests for waiver of interest – While appellant is entitled to a refund along with interest, it would be inequitable to award interest from date of original payment in 2011 given appellant’s role in delay – Both parties have exhibited lapses in their respective obligations – Apart from refund of entire amount deposited by appellant @ 9% interest per annum from date of complaint till date of refund, ADA directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- to appellant. (Paras 16, 17, 22 and 23)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Pecuniary jurisdiction of NCDRC – In consumer disputes, value of claim is determined not just by amount deposited but by aggregate relief sought, which includes compensation and other claims – Claim made by appellant was not limited to deposit amount alone but also included compensation for mental agony, harassment, and loss of income, which brought total claim well above Rs. 1 Crore – NCDRC rightly held that it had requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain complaint. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
In the two appeals filed by appellant, relief claimed is to the extent that payment of interest be awarded from date of deposit while refunding same and not from date of complaint. Whereas in the appeal filed by the ADA, it is submitted that in view of fact that petition had been filed after six years from date of offering possession, as such it was barred by limitation and also as amount deposited was only Rs.59,91,000/- i.e. less than Rs.1 Crore, complaint ought to have been filed before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and NCDRC would have no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain complaint with a value of less than Rs.1 Crore.
Findings of Court:
ADA, being a civic body tasked with serving public and operating on a non-profit basis, should not be unduly penalized in a manner that could impede its functioning.
Result : Civil Appeal Nos. 2809-2810 of 2024 disposed of with directions. Civil Appeal No.6344 of 2024 stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Vikram Nath, J.) :
1. Civil Appeals 2809-2810 of 2024, by the appellant filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 19861[CPA, 1986], read with Order XXIV of the Supreme Court Rules, assail the correctness of the final judgment and order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2[NCDRC], in CC No.600/2020 as also the order dated 30th October, 2023 passed on the Review Application No.335/2023. By the aforesaid orders, the NCDRC allowed the CC No.600/2020 partly to the extent that it directed refund of the entire amount deposited by the Complainant (appellant) (except non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.3,99,100/- deposited on 15.02.2014) along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e. 11.07.2020 till the date of refund within a period of two months from the date of the order.
2. Further, Civil Appeal No. 6344 of 2024 has been filed by the Agra Development Authority3[ADA], assailing the correctness of the same judgment of the NCDRC dated 15.09.2023 partly allowing the complaint.
3. The appellant -Dharmendra Sharma had applied for allotment and purchase of an apartment (residential flat) in the category of Super Deluxe 2 on 28.07.2011 and had deposited the booking amount of Rs.4,60,000/- along with the application. This application was submitted pursuant to an advertisement issued by the ADA for a group housing project lodged in the name of ADA Heights, Taj Nagari, Phase II at Fatehabad Road, near Taj Express Way, Ring Road, Agra. The allotment was done by lottery system on 29.08.2011 whereby the appellant was allotted Flat No.DT-1/1204 which was communicated vide letter dated 19.09.2011, according to which the tentative price of the apartment was Rs.56,54,000/- which could be deposited in 24 equal quarterly instalments or could be paid in full with certain other relaxations. The appellant, opted for full payment and accordingly vide letter dated 21.10.2011, attached two cheques, one by the appellant of Rs.6.94 lakhs and the other of Rs.45 lakhs issued by the LIC Housing Finance Limited. Possession was to be given within six months under the scheme.
4. Upon completion of six months, the appellant requested for possession vide communication dated 03.04.2012. Apparently, the construction was not completed and, in any case, not ready for delivery of possession, as such no possession was delivered even after six months. The appellant thereafter received a communication dated 04.02.2014 offering possession subject to further payment of Rs.3,43,178/- along with non-judicial stamp paper for execution of the deed amounting to Rs.3,99,100/-. The demand so raised was under the following three heads:
i) Rs.84,300/- for solar system;
ii) Rs.46,878/- as leased premium; and
iii) Rs.2,12,000/- for covered parking area.
5. On receipt of the said letter, the appellant visited the site as also the office of ADA on 15.02.2014. He deposited the non-judicial stamp papers as required of Rs.3,99,100/-. But after inspection of the site, he found various deficiencies in the construction which were reported to the Assistant Engineer of the ADA with the request that once the deficiencies are removed, he may be communicated for taking over possession. ADA sent reminders dated 22.09.2014 and 20/21.11.2014 for depositing the balance amount of Rs.3,82,748/-. The appellant, on the other hand, was demanding for completion certificate. There is a further communication by the ADA dated 17.01.2018 demanding an amount of Rs.6,11,575/- and for taking possession after depositing the same and getting the deed executed. On the other hand, the appellant, vide communication dated 02.04.2018, requested for waiver of interest on the balance amount and also sought confirmation whether the flat was ready for physical possession.
6. It was thereafter that the appellant along with letter dated 04.06.2019, sent a cheque dated 01.06.2019 for Rs.3,43,178/- and again requested for confirmation of the date of
(1) Apartment Buyer’s Agreement – Possession offered without requisite completion certificate is illegal and purchaser cannot be compelled to take possession in such circumstances.(2) Pecuniary juris....
Consumer service agreements may not curtail statutory jurisdiction of consumer forums, which can award compensation beyond stipulated contractual terms if deemed unfair.
The ruling affirms that delivery of possession must align with statutory obligations, including the provision of necessary occupancy certificates, which are essential for validating consumer rights i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period for delivery of possession commences from the date the Fire NOC is granted, and the developer's failure to provide promised ameniti....
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
