Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member and Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Member
M/s. Country Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Satish Sharma and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal Nos.23, 120, 222, 389, 390, 392, 393, 419, 832, 1064 and 1065 of 2019
Decided on 15.9.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.51] – Appeal against order of State Commission - Services – Real Estate – Unreasonable delay – beyond grace period – Rate of interest justified - Allotment of Flat / Plot – Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 – rights of consumers - Delayed Possession – Builder buyer Dispute - It is a well settled position that in case of unreasonable delay beyond the agreed and assured period, two parallel rights accrue to the consumer - one: to wait for possession of the subject unit to be offered, if and when the project is completed and the offer of possession is made by the builder co., and to seek just and equitable compensation under the Act 1986 for the unreasonable delay and consequent loss and injury Or two: to claim refund of the amount deposited with just and equitable interest / compensation - The material significance of the grace period needs to be understood in perspective. It by itself provides for a reasonable period of delay beyond the agreed and assured period and it is ab initio built into the agreement with the ‘consumer’. Any period beyond the grace period has to be fully justifiable and tenable with cogent and convincing reasons, which is not at all the case here – Therefore, the rate of interest of 12% per annum appears to be just and reasonable, commensurate with the loss and injury suffered by the complainants – Appeal dismissed, award confirmed. [Paras 7 to 21]
Result: Appeals dismissed.
ORDER
These eleven (11) appeals no. 23, no. 120, no. 222, no. 389, no. 390, no. 392, no. 393, no. 419, no. 832, no. 1064 and no. 1065 of 2019 have been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Orders (11 nos.) dated 11.07.2018, dated 29.08.2018, dated 10.04.2018, dated 30.10.2018, dated 16.10.2018, dated 11.10.218, dated 29.11.2018, dated 24.12.2018, dated 13.02.2019, dated 12.04.2019 and dated 12.04.2019 of the State Commission in complaints no. 68 and no. 442 of 2018, no. 263 of 2017, no. 237, no. 537, no. 284, no. 580, no. 137 and no. 796 of 2018 and no. 33 and no. 34 of 2019.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant builder co. submits that, earlier, appeals no. 281, no. 282 and no. 1967 of 2019 filed by the same appellant had been decided by this Commission vide its Order dated 10.08.2022. The instant eleven (11) appeals have been filed in similar facts and on same questions of law. She has no additional arguments to make other than which had already been made and considered when the appeals no. 281, no. 282 and no. 1967 of 2019 were heard. Her submission is that as the facts are similar and the questions involved are the same she does not propose to unnecessarily dwell or dilate again on the same issues and raise the same arguments all over again when there is nothing material to add or subtract.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent complainants in the appeals no. no. 23, no. 222, no. 389, no. 390, no. 392, no. 393, no. 419, no. 832, no. 1064 and no. 1065 of 2019 submit that the facts in the instant appeals are similar to the facts of appeals no. 281, 282 and 1967 of 2019 which have been decided by this Commission on 10.08.2022. Their submission is that the appraisal made by this Commission in respect of appeals no. 281, 282 and 1967 of 2019 cannot be faulted on any ground, either on facts or on law, and as such the instant eleven (11) appeals may also be disposed of in terms of the examination and reasons contained in the Order dated 10.08.2022 vide which the earlier three (03) appeals had been decided as the facts germane to the issues in question are not distinguishable.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant builder co. and the learned counsel for the respondent complainants have shown the copies of this Commission’s Order dated 10.08.2022 vide which appeals no. 281, 282 and 1967 of 2019 were decided and have drawn our attention to the same.
5. For reference the said Order of 10.08.2022 may be reproduced below:
Dated: 10.08.2022
ORDER
1. These three (03) appeals no. 281, no. 282 and no. 1967 of 2019 have been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Orders (03 nos.) dated 13.09.2018, dated 24.09.2018 and dated 24.07.2019 of the State Consumer in complaints no. 72, no. 436 and no. 295 of 2018.
2. We have heard Mr. Arjun Nanda, learned counsel for the builder co. (the appellant herein in all three appeals) and Mr. Shyam Kumar, learned counsel for the complainants in complaint no. 295 of 2018 (the respondents no. 1 and no. 2 herein in appeal no. 1967 of 2019). Mr. Maibam N. Singh, learned proxy counsel for the complainant in complaint no. 436 of 2018 (the respondent no. 1 herein in appeal no. 282 of 2019) also make his submissions on instructions. No one appears for the complainants in complaint no. 72 of 2018 (the respondents no. 1 and no. 2 herein in appeal no. 281 of 2019).
We have also perused the material on record, including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Orders (03 nos.) dated 13.09.2018, dated 24.09.2018 and dated 24.07.2019 and the memoranda of appeals (03 nos.).
First appeals no. 281 of 2019; no. 282 of 2019 and no. 1967 of 2019:
3. Similar facts and same questions of law are involved in these three (03) appeals. As such they are being disposed of vide this common order, with appeal no. 281 of 2019 being taken as the lead case.
First appeal no. 281 of 2019 (lead case):
4. The appeal has been filed with
(1) Unreasonable delay - It is a well settled position that in case of unreasonable delay beyond the agreed and assured period, two parallel rights accrue to the consumer.(2) Grace period - Any perio....
Two parallel rights - It is a well settled position that in case of unreasonable delay beyond the agreed and assured period, two parallel rights accrue to the consumer.
“A consumer cannot be made to wait indefinitely or unreasonably and thus complaints hold entitled for refund of amount deposited under Builder Buyer Agreement.”
The builder's delay in possession constituted deficiency of service, requiring compensation with interest under consumer protection law.
Just & equitable - the compensation has to be just and equitable, commensurate with the loss and injury suffered.
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Denial of timely possession despite substantial payment – Payment of interest on refund of principal amount is necessary.
(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....
(1) Unreasonable delay – in a case of an unreasonable delay in offering possession of the allotted flat, the consumer cannot be compelled to accept possession at a belated stage and is entitled to se....
Compensation - Since the compensation in the form of interest has already been awarded, the Respondents/Complainants shall not be entitled for any other compensation.
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
