NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
KDP Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Pankaj Singh – Respondent
First Appeal No.241 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 08/01/2019 in Complaint No. 323/2017 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 6.1.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession – Builder Buyer Agreement – Award of Compensation – to be Just and equitable - The different forums while discharging their judicial or quasi-judicial functions can neither afford to be oversensitive while assessing the grievance of the consumer nor can they be found reluctant in providing just and appropriate compensation commensurate with the loss or injury suffered or in awarding condign damages wherever called for. They cannot allow themselves to either become instruments of converting the solemn provisions of the Act into means of exploitation of service providers in the name of consumer justice or to ever disregard the plight of the aggrieved consumer with apathy or indifference. The forums have to be unfailingly judicious, and try to meet the scales of equity in each case having regard to its particular facts & circumstances and specificities – Therefore, the compensation has to be just and equitable, commensurate with the loss and injury suffered. In the particular facts & circumstances and specificities of the present case it is felt that rate of interest of 12% per annum, as conceded to by the learned counsel for the complainant, will in every way be just and equitable, commensurate with the loss and injury suffered by the complainant, anything less will be somewhat less than justice -Thus, the award made by the State Commission is modified to the extent that the builder co. through its managing director shall forthwith refund an amount of Rs.10,81,707/- to the complainant with interest. [Paras 7 to 12].
Result: Compliant allowed.
ORDER
This appeal has been preferred in challenge to the Order dated 08.01.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 323 of 2017. The appeal has been erroneously filed under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986; it is however being taken up under section 19 of the Act which deals with ‘Appeals’ to this Commission against an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers under section 17(a)(i).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘builder co.’) and the learned counsel for the respondent (the ‘complainant’). Also perused the record including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 08.01.2019 and the memorandum of appeal.
3. The matter relates to a builder-buyer dispute. Briefly, the builder co. entered into an agreement with the complainant on 23.06.2013 in respect of a residential unit. The assured date for delivery of possession of the subject unit was 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement. The same elapsed on 22.06.2016. Delivery of possession was not made within the assured period, nor was it even made within a reasonable period thence (reasonable period here would connote a period which may appear reasonable per se and which a reasonable man of ordinary prudence would not normally agitate or object to). The State Commission ordered the builder co. to refund the deposited amount with compensation in the form of simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till actual realisation. It also awarded Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. The builder co. preferred the present appeal before this Commission. On 18.02.2020, at the stage of admission, this Commission passed the following Order:—
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the material on record.
2. The award made by the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 08.01.2019 reads as below:
ORDER
The complaint is partially accepted and opposition is ordered that, he should return the complainant’s deposit amount of Rs.10,81,707/- to the complainant at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of deposit to the date of payment. Rs.10,000/- should also be paid to the opposition to complainant for case expenses.
3. It is admitted that [a] the agreed and assured date of completion has elapsed and [b] the completion-cum- occupancy certificate of the subject unit has as yet not been duly obtained.
4. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits, on instructions, that the appellant is ready and willing to refund the principal amount of Rs. 10,81,707/- to the respondent complainant within 8 weeks from today. Learned counsel further submits that the instant first appeal may hereinafter be confined and restricted to the questions of rate of interest and cost of litigation only.
5. The above submissions, made on instructions, during arguments, are recorded.
6. The appellant is directed to refund the entire principal amount of Rs. 10,81,707/- to the respondent complainant within 8 weeks from today, as submitted and assured.
7. This instant first appeal shall hereinafter be confined and restricted to the questions of rate of interest and cost of litigation only.
8. Issue notice to the respondent complainant, subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent complainant within 6 weeks from today to defray travel and allied expenses.
9. The Registry may ensure that the notice is issued and despatched within 10 days.
10. Let the notice also be ‘dasti’ in addition.
11. The appellant is directed to ensure the due ‘dasti’ service of the notice on the respondent, without fail, before the next date of hearing.
12. Contingent to the entire principal amount of Rs. 10,81,707/- being paid to the complainant within the submitted and assured period of 8 weeks from today, the operation of the impugned Order dated 08.01.2019 of the State Commission insofar as it relates to payment of interest and cost of lit
Just & equitable - the compensation has to be just and equitable, commensurate with the loss and injury suffered.
“A builder company cannot retain the amount deposited by a consumer indefinitely.”
“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.
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 builder company cannot retain the amount deposited by consumer for indefinitely.”
(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....
1) Non-fulfilment of its overall responsibilities of project planning, execution and completion cannot be and are no grounds for condoning or overlooking delay in completion and failure to offer poss....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.