Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Malik, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Adv. Mr. Jns Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kaushik Poddar, AOR Mr. Akash Dalal, Adv.

Key Points: - (!) The court emphasizes that actual loss must be proved before compensation is granted, and interest can be awarded beyond the contract rate when warranted by facts. - (!) There is no universal rule that builder-charged default interest cannot be awarded to the buyer; reasonable interest is permitted. - (!) The Supreme Court modified NCDRC’s 9% p.a. interest to 12% p.a. in Vidya v. Parsvnath, indicating that rate depends on case specifics. - (!) The Court held that the respondent’s conduct—long delay and high default interest—may justify not awarding nominal liability and adjusting interest to reflect fairness. - (!) , (!) - (!) Clause 7 and its interpretation show that layout changes may occur, but the seller’s obligations and possible refunds are impacted by such changes. - (!) - (!) The appellant argued for higher or parity-based interest when compared to the builder’s rate and other cases; the Court discusses parity and reasonableness. - (!) The Court’s decision to modify interest from 9% to a higher rate (12% in earlier case, 18% in other contexts) demonstrates variability based on conduct and circumstances. - (!) - (!) The Court analyzes whether changes in layout and location bound the purchaser and impact compensation/refund. - (!) - (!) Authority and law on awarding interest, including references to IREO Grace and Vidya decisions, guiding reasonableness of rates. - (!) The decision to modify the rate of interest to reflect fairness, while upholding refund of principal.

Question 1?

What is the appropriate rate of interest to be awarded on the principal amount in a builder-buyer dispute where possession was delayed and there is alleged overcharging, considering actual loss and fairness?

Question 2?

What factors justify modifying the NCDRC’s awarded interest rate in a plot buyer agreement when the agreement is found to be one-sided or when there is significant delay by the seller?

Question 3?

What is the effect of clauses in a plot buyer agreement (e.g., clause 7 on layout changes and clause 22 on possession) on compensation and refund obligations when the seller alters plot location or delays handover?