SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
Emaar MGF Land Ltd. and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Baljeet Kaur Teja – Respondent
First Appeal No.548 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 29/05/2015 in Complaint No.48/2015 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
Decided on 24.3.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate with Mr. Mishra Raj Shekhar, Advocate, (through video conferencing)
For the Respondent:Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate, (through video conferencing)

IMPORTANT POINT
“A builder company cannot retain the amount deposited by a consumer indefinitely.”

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Builder Buyer dispute – Refund amount – Legality – Complainant deposited in total Rs. 38,77,854/- with Builder Company – Possession of subject unit not delivered to complainant, within the stipulated three years – A builder company cannot retain the amount deposited by consumer definitely – Refund of amount of Rs. 38,77,854/- with interest @ 6% p.a. as directed by State Commission upheld.

Held: It is further noted that the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10,35,000/- as booking amount, after which the subject unit was allotted by the Builder Co. to the Complainant on 15.05.2007. The agreement was executed on 04.07.2007. The assured period of completion was two years, and not later than three years, from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. not later than 03.07.2010. The Complainant deposited in total an amount of Rs.38,77,854/- with the Builder Co. The Builder Co. was not in a position to offer possession of the subject unit (or the alternative unit thereafter allotted) to the Complainant till the date the State Commission made its Award i.e. till 29.05.2015.

Filing appeal with prayer for setting aside the State Commission’s Order, calling the Complainant for settlement talks at its office, being principally aggrieved only with the rate of interest, holding on to the amount deposited by the Complainant for about a decade, not being in a position to offer possession of the subject unit (or the alternative unit thereafter allotted) within the agreed and assured period or within a reasonable period thence, read in conjunction, speak for itself.

Having regard to what has been abridged above, it is deemed lawful, just, equitable and conscionable to summarily dismiss the instant First Appeal No. 548 of 2015, with liberty to the Builder Co. to file appeal, afresh, within thirty days from today, after refunding the entire amount deposited by the Complainant (Rs. 38,77,854/-) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the dates of respective deposits till the date(s) of actual realisation and after paying the lumpsum compensation (Rs. 1,50,000/-) and cost of litigation (Rs. 20,000), strictly restricting and confining its appeal only and only to the question of rate of interest over and above 6% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainant.

It is made explicit that the first charge on the amount to be refunded shall be of the financial institution which provided loan to the Complainant, as has been ordered vide sub-para (iv) of para 28 of the State Commission’s Order of 29.05.2015.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the Builder Co. and to the Complainant, as well as to their learned Counsel, within three days from today. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on this Commission’s website today positively. (Paras 8 to 11)

Result: Appeal Dismissed.

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 29.05.2015 in C. C. No. 48 of 2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh (the ‘State Commission’).

2. Heard arguments from Mr. Aditya Narain, learned Counsel for the Appellant (the ‘Builder Co.’) and Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the Respondent (the ‘Complainant’).

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the impugned Order dated 29.05.2015 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 29.05.2015 had partly accepted the Complaint.

The Award made by the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 29.05.2015 reads as below:

28. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

(i) To refund the amount of Rs.38,77,854/-, to the complainant, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(ii) To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(iii) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainant.

(iv) LIC Housing Finance Limited, shall have the first charge on the amount ordered to be refunded, in favour of the complainant, to the extent it (amount) was found due to it against her (complainant).

(v) In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties, shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest @15% P.A., instead of 12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and interest @12% P.A., on the amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of costs, to the tune of Rs.20,000/.

5. Mr. Aditya Narain, learned Counsel for the Builder Co. submits that the Builder Co. is attempting a settlement with the Complainant, for which the Complainant has been called to its office. The Builder Co. is principally aggrieved with the rate of interest of 12% per annum (on the amount deposited by the Complainant) awarded by the State Commission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum (related judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court have not been filed by the Builder Co., nor the citations referred to during the submissions).

6. It is noted that the prayer made in the Memorandum of Appeal is for setting aside the impugned Order dated 29.05.2015 of the State Commission.

7. It is also noted that the State Commission has passed a well-appraised reasoned Order, it has aptly dealt with the issues and contentions raised by the Builder Co.

8. It is further noted that the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10,35,000/- as booking amount, after which the subject unit was allotted by the Builder Co. to the Complainant on 15.05.2007. The agreement was executed on 04.07.2007. The assured period of completion was two years, and not later than three years, from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. not later than 03.07.2010. The Complainant deposited in total an amount of Rs.38,77,854/- with the Builder Co. The Builder Co. was not in a position to offer possession of the subject unit (or the alternative unit thereafter allotted) to the Complainant till the date the State Commission made its Award i.e. till 29.05.2015.

On the one hand, the Builder Co. was not in a position to offer possession of the subject unit within the agreed and assured period of three years or within a reasonable period thence (reasonable period

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top