IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 be proved to have been suffered by consumer.
(2) Interest – There is no principle of law that interest in default charged by Builder can never be granted to buyer.

JUDGMENT :

Dipankar Datta, J.

THE APPEAL

1. This appeal assails an order dated 13th January, 2023, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi¹[NCDRC] disposing of a consumer complaint lodged before it by the appellant.

FACTS

2. Facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are as follows:

a. On 10th March, 2006, the appellant booked a plot²[Plot bearing no. 2, Block G-4, Phase -2 admeasuring 343 square yards] in a project of the respondent named Park Land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 36,03,692/- (basic price - Rs. 30,87,000/-). As advance/registration charges, Rs. 7,86,218/- was paid on the same day.

b. On 11th December, 2007, a plot buyer agreement³[AGREEMENT] was executed between the parties.

c. As per clause 22 of the AGREEMENT, the possession of the plot was to be handed over within 24 months of sanction of service plans of the entire colony. Furthermore, clause 12 provided that time is of the essence, and in case of default by the buyer, late payment charges at 18% p.a. on the due amount, compounded at the time of every succeeding instalment or three months, whichever is earlier, would be levied by the respondent.

d. By April, 2011, the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 28,79,065/-. On 13th April, 2011, more than 5 (five) years after the first payment, the respondent informed the appellant that due to changes in the layout plan, it had decided to allot an alternative plot to the appellant. Since the new plot was 7 sq. yards larger than the original plot, the respondent further demanded a sum of Rs. 2,30,784/- as an additional amount. Accordingly, an addendum to the AGREEMENT was executed between the parties on 13th April, 2011. Clause 7 of the AGREEMENT (discussed in the latter part of the judgment) provided for allotment of an alternative plot if a change in layout plan was required by any statutory authority.

e. The appellant on 11th March, 2015, paid a sum of Rs. 83,377.67, out of which Rs. 83,300.76 was towards interest @ 18% p.a. charged by the respondent for the appellant’s default in making the payments.

f. As per the statement of accounts dated 23rd March, 2015 prepared by the respondent, the appellant had paid a sum total of Rs. 43,13,312.67/-.

g. Aggrieved by the respondent’s inaction in allotting the plot, the appellant terminated the AGREEMENT with the respondent vide letter dated 27th March, 2017.

h. Thereafter, on 27th March, 2017, the appellant issued a legal notice informing the respondent about such termination and seeking a refund of Rs. 43,13,212/- along with 24% interest p.a. and a sum of Rs. 72,30,000/- on account of loss of appreciation of property.

i. Ultimately, in April 2018, the appellant lodged the consumer complaint⁴[Consumer Case No. 885 of 2018] before the NCDRC referred to in the opening paragraph.

j. After the lodging of the complaint, the respondent offered the possession of the plot on 8th May, 2018, subject to payment of a further amount of Rs. 7,60,900.33/-.

k. Vide the impugned order, the consumer complaint was disposed of with directions to the respondent to refund the entire principal amount of Rs. 43,13,212/- along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of each payment till the date of refund. Additionally, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded towards litigation costs to the appellant.

l. The said order is under challenge before this Court in this appeal at the instance of the partly successful complainant.

IMPUGNED ORDER :

3. During the course of hearing before the NCDRC, learned counsel for the respondent offered to repay the principal amount with 9% simple interest per annum. This weighed with the NCDRC, and it ordered accordingly without going into the merits of the case. It is imperative to mention that the impugned order nowhere records that the appellant accepted such an offer. Rather, the NCDRC disposed of the matter merely based on the offer made by the counsel for the respondent.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

4. It was submitted by M