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

2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 18929

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R. K. Agrawal, J
Bathinda Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Sunish Gupta – Respondent
Consumer Complaint | 314 of 2018 | Appeals



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Counsel for Bathinda Development Authority
For the Respondents: Counsel for Mr. Sunish Gupta

Authorities must clarify payment structures and ensure timely refunds, as consumer rights are pivotal in contractual agreements.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 19 - Allotment of residential plot - Complainant's failure to make subsequent payments - Earnest money forfeiture as per clauses - Claim for refund with interest post-default notices - State Commission's order for partial refund upheld with adjustments for fairness. (Paras 3-12)

(B) Obligation of authorities in self-financing schemes - The development authority's failure to deliver possession within stipulated time - Appellate discussions on timelines for payment and clarity in agreements - Notice efficiencies and responsibilities discussed. (Paras 8-10)

(C) Refund and interest determination - Court assessed the timeline for refunding with interest from notice dates rather than complaint request date, ensuring justice for complainant's financial diligence. (Paras 12-13)

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction and appeal introduction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. overview of complaint and initial payments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments regarding payment defaults. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's expectations for clarity and performance from authorities. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. court's decision on refunds and interest. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

1. These two (2) appeals under S.19 of the Act 1986 have been filed apropos the same Order dated 25.9.2018 of the State Commission in complaint No. 314 of 2018.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for Bathinda Development Authority (the "development authority") and for Mr. Sunish Gupta (the "complainant"). We have also perused the record including inter alia the State Commission's Order of 25.9.2018 and the two (2) memoranda of appeal.

3. Relevant facts, as material for appreciating the issues germane, may first be recapitulated.
The complainant applied for allotment of a residential plot with the development authority on 30.10.2010. The tentative total price of the plot was Rs.44 lakh. 10% thereof, i.e. Rs.4.40 lakh was to be paid as earnest money. The complainant paid the same with his application. He was successful in the draw of lots held on 18.3.2011.
Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 9.5.2011 was issued by the development authority to the complainant. Clause 5 of the LoI stipulated that 15% of the total price of the plot will be payable within 30 days. The said clause is reproduced below for reference:
5. A sum of Rs.6,60,000, being 15% of total price of the plot shall be payable within 30 days from the date of issue of this Letter of Intent.
The complainant paid the amount of Rs.6.60 lakh on 7.6.2011.
Two schemes apropos further payment were provided for in Clause 6 of the LoI. The said clause is reproduced below for reference:
6. As per your payment plan (Option - A) you are required to deposit the amount given against each option as under:
Option - A
A sum of Rs.27,72,000, being 70% of total price of the plot after giving 10% rebate on balance principle amount to be deposited within 60 days from the date of issue of this letter of intent i.e. on or before 7 Jul, 2011.
Option - B
Balance 70% of the total price of the plot is to be deposited in 7 half yearly instalments along with interest @ 12% per annum as under:

As such under Option 'A' 70% of the total price was payable within 60 days of issue of the LoI with rebate of 10% on the balance principal amount payable. Under Option 'B' 70% of the total price was payable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in 7 half - yearly instalments from the date of issue of the LoI, i.e. on 9.11.2011, 9.5.2012, 9.11.2012, 9.5.2013, 9.11.2013, 9.5.2014 and 9.11.2014.
The complainant opted for Plan 'B'. The first instalment of Rs.6.248 lakh was due on 9.11.2011. The complainant paid the same on 4.11.2011.
The complainant paid a total amount of Rs.4.40 lakh (earnest money with his application) plus Rs.6.60 lakh (within 30 days of issue of the LoI) plus Rs.6.248 lakh (first instalment under Option 'B') equal to Rs.17,24,800 in all.
The LoI provided for payment of 10% of the total price as earnest money, then 15% of the total price within 30 days of issue of the LoI under Clause 5, and then 70% of the total price under Option 'A' or Option 'B' under Clause 6 i.e. total 95%. It did not give the timeline for depositing the balance 5% of the total price.
After depositing the first instalment of Rs.6.248 lakh on 4.11.2011 the complainant did not make any further instalment(s).
The development authority issued notice apropos default to the complainant on 11.7.2012, 28.8.2012, 23.10.2012 and 20.3.2013.
Meanwhile an allotment letter dated 16.4.2014 was issued. Clause 3 of the allotment letter gave the timeline for paying the balance 5% of the price of the plot. The said clause is reproduced below for reference:
3. A sum equivalent to 5% (Rs.2,20,000) of Price of plot i.e. total of Rs.2,20,000 is to be made within 30 days from the date of issue of this letter.
Notice regarding default





































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