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

2025 Supreme(Ker) 369

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN, J
Confident Projects India (P) Ltd - Appellant
Versus
The Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 27727 OF 2024
Decided On : 19-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.SHANAVAS KHAN, S.INDU, KALA G.NAMBIAR
For the Respondent: SHRI.C.M.NAZAR

IMPORTANT POINT
Pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate Act must be refunded post-appeal resolution, safeguarding allottee interests.

Headnote:

(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Section 43(5) - Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018 - Compensation for failure to provide promised facilities - Petitioners directed to pay Rs.4,28,368/- with interest and litigation costs - Pre-deposit under Section 43(5) is a condition for appeal and must be refunded upon appeal resolution - The refund is proportionate to the reduction in compensation as per appellate order. (Paras 1 - 5 )

(B) Appeal - Pre-deposit obligations - The deposit serves to protect allottee interests and is not to be retained as security post-decision of appeal - Refund process outlined in the context of ongoing litigation rights and obligations. (Paras 2 - 5 )

Facts of the case:

The 1st petitioner, a construction company, and its Managing Director faced a complaint from the 2nd respondent regarding unfulfilled amenities in an apartment project, leading to a compensation order from K-RERA. The petitioners appealed, deposited the compensation amount, and sought a refund of the deposit after a partial allowance of their appeal.

Findings of Court:

The court ruled that the K-RERA must refund the pre-deposit amount proportionate to the reduction in compensation, while allowing the petitioners to claim further amounts based on the outcome of the second appeal.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the pre-deposit made during the appeal process should be refunded after the appeal's resolution, and how it relates to the rights of the allottees and the obligations of the promoters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the pre-deposit is intended to secure the allottee's interests and should be refunded upon resolution of the appeal, reflecting the legislative intent to protect consumers in real estate transactions.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for K-RERA to refund the eligible amount.

JUDGMENT :

The 1st petitioner is a company engaged in the construction of apartments and non-residential buildings. The 2nd petitioner is the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner company. The 2nd respondent is the allottee of an apartment in one of the projects. The 2nd respondent had filed a complaint before the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA), seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the loss and mental agony suffered by him due to the failure on the part of the petitioners to provide the promised facilities and amenities. The K-RERA partly allowed the complaint vide Ext.P1 order and directed the petitioners to pay Rs.4,28,368/- to the 2nd respondent as compensation, with 14.85% interest from the date of complaint till realisation, along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-. While filing the appeal against the order, petitioners deposited the entire amount of compensation along with interest and produced the Fixed Deposit receipts, as mandated by Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Further, the fee of Rs.1000/- stipulated in Rule 28 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018 (the Rules for short) was also remitted. The 1st respondent partly allowed the appeal as per Ext.P4, confirming the direction to pay compensation for inconvenience and mental agony, setting aside the direction to compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs for the car parking area. Challenging Ext.P4, petitioners preferred M.S.A. No.8 of 2024 before the High Court and the operation of the impugned order is stayed by Ext.P5 interim order. Thereupon, petitioners preferred Ext.P6 application before the 1st respondent, seeking return of the Fixed Deposit Receipts submitted along with the appeal. By Ext.P7 order, the K-RERA allowed refund of the pre-deposit commensurate with the reduction in compensation ordered in the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, pre-deposit under Section 43(5) is insisted only to maintain the appeal and once the appeal is decided, appellant is entitled for refund of the deposited amount. The pre-deposit cannot be retained as security for the amount which the allottee may become entitled based on the orders of the K-RERA or the appellate authority. The legislature in its wisdom has included Section 40 providing for recovery of amounts due from the promoters as arrears of land revenue. It is contended that the statutory deposit under Section 43(5) cannot also be equated with Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC.

3. I heard the learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader also.

4. The contentions being centered around Section 43(5), the said provision has to be read carefully and for that purpose, is extracted hereunder;

“43. Establishment of Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.—(1) The appropriate Government shall, within a period of one year from the date of coming into force of this Act, by notification, establish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as the ……………………. (name of the State/Union Territory) Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

xx xxxx xxx

(5) Any person aggrieved by any direction or decision or order made by the Authority or by an adjudicating officer under this Act may prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter:

Provided that where a promoter files an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal, it shall not be entertained, without the promoter first having deposited with the Appellate Tribunal at least thirty per cent of the penalty, or such higher percentage as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal, or the total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation imposed on him, if any, or with both, as the case may be, before the said appeal is heard.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section “person” shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any

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