Refund rights of consumers upheld despite payment issues, highlighting supplier's persistent obligation to deliver services as contracted under consumer protection principles.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Refund of deposited amount - Conditions for refund and possession transfer - Complainants allotted residential plots, paid initial amounts but faced delays in possession - Jalandhar Improvement Trust failed to deliver possession and attempted to deny refunds, citing consumer status - Court ruled on rights upon refund requests involving claims of deficiency of service due to delay and status quo orders. (Paras 32, 34, 53, 59)

(B) Legal standing of complainants - Court determined that mere payment status does not negate consumer rights; refunds permissible despite incomplete payment in cases of delay and unmet contractual obligations by the Trust. (Paras 36, 52)

(C) Interest on refunds - Interest rate set at 9% per annum, ruling against higher interest on refunds advised by the Supreme Court. (Paras 54, 59)

Facts of the case:
Multiple complainants filed for refunds upon delayed possession of allotted residential plots and dissatisfaction regarding development delays and legal disputes. (Paras 1-30)

Findings of Court:
Refunds upheld as the Trust failed both in delivering plots in a timely manner and in addressing complainants’ requests; interest stipulated at 9%. (Paras 56-59)

Issues: Whether complainants are entitled to refunds and how delays in possession impact consumer rights within the framework of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Ratio Decidendi: Consumer rights protected under the act do not diminish based on payment status once the Trust has demonstrated inconsistent service outcomes; refund rights are core to consumer protection. (Paras 34, 36)

Result: Appeals dismissed, affirming the consumers’ right to refunds with stipulated interest.

1. Brief facts of these appeals are as under:
FA 803 of 2015 & FA 688 of 2015
The complainant Jaswinder Singh Virdi, was allotted residential plot No. 182 - D measuring 200 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 2.4.2012 for total consideration of Rs.35,36,950. Out of total consideration, complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.6,74,315 on 28.5.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 4 installments have been paid. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) did not offer the possession of the said plot to the complainant. The complainant sent request vide letter dated 29.5.2014 to E.O. Improvement Trust to either deliver the possession of the plot or to refund the deposited amount if the opposite party was unable to deliver the possession due to any legal impediment / Court case pending. The complainant also sent request to the Chairman of J.I.T. to either deliver the possession or to refund the amount vide letter dated 11.6.2014. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint No. 135 of 2014 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 20.7.2015 partly allowed the complaint with cost of Rs.5,000. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.34,11,315 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the dates of different payments of that amount and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000 to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No. 688 of 2015 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. First Appeal No. 803 of 2015 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 14 days against the same impugned order dated 20.7.2015 passed by the State Commission.

2. FA 689 of 2015 & FA 804 of 2015
The complainant Gurdev Mal was allotted residential plot No. 114 - D measuring 250 sq.yards vide allotment letter dated 2.4.2012 for total consideration of Rs.44,20,950. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.8,08,450 on 3.5.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 2 installments have been paid. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) did not offer the possession of the said plot to the complainant. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint No. 136 of 2014 before the State Commission.

3. The State Commission vide its order dated 20.7.2015 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs.5,000. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.27,98,450 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the dates of different payments of that amount and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000 to the complainant. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, First Appeal No. 689 of 2015 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. First Appeal No. 804 of 2015 has been filed by the opposite party (J.I.T.) with delay of 14 days against the same impugned order dated 20.7.2015 passed by the State Commission.

4. FA 690 of 2015 and FA 805 of 2015
The complainant Jagtar Singh was allotted residential plot No. 192 - D measuring 200 sq.yards vide allotment letter dated 2.4.2012 for total consideration of Rs.35,36,950. Out of total consideration, the complainant has paid 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.6,46,950 on 2.5.2012 and for remaining 75% of the amount which is to be paid in 5 installments, 3 installments have been paid. The opposite party Jalandhar Improvement Trust (J.I.T.) did not offer the possession of the said plot to the complainant. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint No. 137 of 2014 before the State Commission.

5. The State Commission vide its order dated 20.7.2015 allowed the complaint with cost of Rs.5,000. The State Commission directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.28,33,450 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the dates of different payments of that amount & to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000 to the complainant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4368

Refund rights of consumers upheld despite payment issues, highlighting supplier's persistent obligation to deliver services as contracted under consumer protection principles.

Cases Referred (2)