Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing And Area Development Board (A Mhada Unit) and Others – Appellants
Versus
Manohar Burde – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4383 of 2025 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3802 of 2024
Decided On : 26-03-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67 – Housing – Group Housing Project – Allotment of flat – Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of Housing Board – High Court opined that there was delay on part of respondent in not completing construction within agreed period and there has been delay at all stages – It also took note of fact that reduction in rate of interest by NCDRC to 9% p.a. from 15% p.a. was not for any justifiable reason – Setting aside order passed by NCDRC, High Court awarded 15% interest on entire amount paid by petitioner – NCDRC having taken note of relevant aspects including factum of delay and fact that petitioner had opted for refund of money deposited, rightly held that as a home buyer, petitioner cannot be compelled to take possession of flat after such long time, and as such ordered for refund of entire amount deposited with 15% interest – 15% interest awarded by High Court is excessive – Impugned order set aside and order passed by NCDRC in so far as it relates to award of 9% interest restored – Compensation payable reduced from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs.7,50,000/- as it would meet ends of justice. (Paras 8, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
In present appeal, order dated 29.01.2024 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 5052 of 2022, whereby Writ Petition came to be allowed, and order dated 27.07.2022 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 796 of 2019 came to be quashed, is being questioned.
Findings of Court:
Having regard to fact that appellant herein is an instrumentality of State, delay if any, cannot be attributed to any personal animosity of officers manning institution and they have been discharging statutory duties.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. In the present appeal, the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 5052 of 2022, whereby the Writ Petition came to be allowed, and order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (herein after referred to as “NCDRC” in short) in Appeal No. 796 of 2019 came to be quashed, is being questioned. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the High Court.
3. The facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal are as under –
The Respondents launched a Group Housing Project in year 2009. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner applied for a 3 BHK flat and deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 23.09.2009 and by virtue of lottery drawn on 03.01.2010, petitioner was allotted a flat. In furtherance of the allotment, the petitioner had to pay the balance consideration in eight (8) instalments, out of which he deposited seven (7) instalments between 31.12.2011 to 31.03.2013 and the eighth (8th) instalment was deposited on 26.08.2013 on the assurance that possession of flat will be delivered timely. The prime grievance of the petitioner is two-fold, firstly, the delivery of possession of the flat was delayed and secondly, demand of additional amount posing the threat of cancellation of allotment. The said amount was paid by the petitioner, however in vain, it did not yield any result or possession of the flat was delivered to the petitioner.
Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the petitioner filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “SCDRC”), which came to be allowed vide order dated 20.02.2017 with a direction to the authorities to deliver possession within six (6) months and to pay interest @ 15% p.a. for the period of delay w.e.f. July 2013 till handing over of possession. The same was challenged by the respondents in First Appeal No. 1741 of 2017 and the case was remitted to the SCDRC for adjudication on merits afresh.
4. On remand, the SCDRC by order dated 07.02.2019 partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to complete the construction of the allotted flat along with a direction to Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 therein to pay interest @ 15% p.a. to the complainant for the delayed period w.e.f. 01.07.2013 till delivery of the possession of flat on the amount paid by the complainant. It was further ordered that, in the event construction is not completed, the amount paid by the complainant should be refunded along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization along with compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards loss suffered by him; and, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards physical and mental harassment along with Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation cost.
5. The respondents being aggrieved, preferred appeal before NCDRC which was partly allowed by order dated 27.07.2022 and respondents were directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. against interest @ 15% as directed by SCDRC. The NCDRC also directed payment of Rs. 50,000/- as consolidated costs. The respondents filed a review being R.A. No. 180 of 2022 seeking review of the order dated 27.07.2022, which was also dismissed by NCDRC vide order dated 26.08.2022.
6. The respondents being aggrieved by the orders dated 27.07.2022 and 12.08.2022, filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25157 of 2023 before this Court, which stood dismissed by order dated 06.11.2023.
7. However, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.07.2022, the petitioner (complainant) filed W.P. No. 5052 of 2022 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which was allowed vide impugned order setting aside the order passed by the NCDRC and granting the reliefs as sought in the Writ Petition.
8. The High Court opined that there was delay on the part
Housing – A home buyer cannot be compelled to take possession of flat after a long time – High rate of interest cannot be awarded on refund amount.
The court found no basis for modifying the interest rate and additional costs due to insufficient grounds and lack of contractual entitlement for increased interest on delayed possession.
(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 ....
Compensation can take different forms – Determination has to be made, keeping in view stage of work completed, where service provider has lapsed in duty and loss caused thereby – Uniformity is foreig....
(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 Agreement – Delay in delivery of possession – Rate of interest on amount of refund cannot be less than that as provided in agreement.
Consumer service agreements may not curtail statutory jurisdiction of consumer forums, which can award compensation beyond stipulated contractual terms if deemed unfair.
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of timely possession despite substantial payment – Payment of interest on refund of principal amount is necessary.
Non-availability of the Occupancy/Completion Certificate points to the deficiency on the part of the Appellant.
The court confirmed the right to interest for delayed possession, noting the absence of force majeure and completion certificate.
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
