Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
M/s. Orris Infrastructure (P) Ltd. and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Naveen Garg and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.1890 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 27/07/2018 in Complaint No.385/2016 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 25.3.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate, (through video conferencing)
For the Respondents:Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate, (through video conferencing)

IMPORTANT POINT
“A consumer cannot be made to wait indefinitely or unreasonably and thus complaints hold entitled for refund of amount deposited under Builder Buyer Agreement.”

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 19 and 27 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Builder Buyer dispute – Refund of money – Legality – Subject-unit as booked by complainants not delivered in time agreed upon – Complainants had made their deposits in January 2012 to May 2014 – Protection had to be completed latest by 28.10.2015 – However, completion/occupancy certificate was not obtained till the date 7.12.2016 i.e., before filing the complaint in State Commission – Thus, unreasonable and undue delay is self evident – A consumer cannot be made to wait indefinitely – State Commission rightly directed for refund of amount deposited i.e., Rs. 66,13,435/- with interest @ 11% p.a. – Along with lamp sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and costs of litigation of Rs. 21,000/- – Award to this extent upheld – However, penal interest @ 18% p.a. set aside – Order accordingly. (Paras 9 to 15)
Result: Appeal Disposed of.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member.—This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’) challenging the Order dated 27.07.2018 in C. C. No. 385 of 2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (the ‘State Commission’).

2. Heard arguments from Mr. Sunil Mund, learned Counsel for the Appellant (the ‘Builder Co.’) and Mr. Karan Nehra, learned Counsel for the Respondents (the ‘Complainants’).

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the impugned Order dated 27.07.2018 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal.

3. This relates to a builder-buyer dispute.

4. The State Commission vide its Order dated 27.07.2018 has accepted the Complaint.

The Award made by the State Commission in para 18 of its impugned Order of 27.07.2018 reads as below:

- - - and hence with the above observation and discussion there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, the O.Ps. are directed to refund of the amount of Rs. 66,13,435/- alongwith interest @ 11% per annum from the date of respective deposits and till realization. Hence this question is answered in affirmative. In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period of two months in that eventuality the complainants would further be entitled to get the interest @ 18% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainants are also entitled of Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation of mental agony and physical harassment. In addition, the complainants are also entitled of Rs.21,000/- as litigation charges. It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under Section 27 of the C.P. Act would also be attractable.

That is to say, the State Commission has ordered for refund of the amount of Rs. 66,13,435/- deposited by the Complainants with interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till its realisation; it has also stipulated that if the payment is not made within a period of two months, the Complainants will be entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the defaulting period. It has also ordered for lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000 and cost of litigation of Rs. 21,000/-.

5. Vide Order dated 24.05.2019 of a coordinate bench of this Commission, the operation of the impugned Order of the State Commission was stayed subject to deposit of the principal amount of Rs. 66,13,435/- with the State Commission.

During the course of adjudication of this case, vide Order dated 24.10.2019 of a coordinate bench of this Commission, after considering the submission made by the Complainant(s) in person that he required money urgently for treatment of his parents as well as for the maintenance of his child, and after considering the objection of the learned Counsel for the Builder Co. that it will be difficult for it to get refund from the Complainants in case the Appeal is decided in its favour, an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- was ordered to be released to the Complainants against bank guarantee.

The said Order dated 24.10.2019 has not been put to review by either side.

6. Mr. Sunil Mund, learned Counsel for the Builder Co. argued that the Builder Co. has since obtained the Completion / Occupancy Certificate and has since made the offer of possession to the Complainants. This offer has been made within a reasonable period of expiry of the agreed and assured period of offering possession. The Builder Co. faced several problems which impeded timely execution of its Project. The Agreement has a specific clause re Force Majeure. The Complainants are only entitled to take possession along with reasonable compensation for delay in offering possession.

Mr. Karan Mehra, learned counsel for the Complainants argued that the Completion / Occupancy Certificate and the offer of possession have been unreasonably and inordinately delayed. The prayer made in its Complaint before the State Commission was for refun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINT“A consumer cannot be made to wait indefinitely or unreasonably and thus complaints hold entitled for refund of amount deposited under Builder Buyer Agreement.”

IMPORTANT POINT
“A consumer cannot be made to wait indefinitely or unreasonably and thus complaints hold entitled for refund of amount deposited under Builder Buyer Agreement.”