Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2566
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, PRESIDENT, Inder Jit Singh, MEMBER
Mayank Selhi – Appellant
Versus
Saya Homes Private Limited – Respondent
NC/FA/572/2023 | NC/IA/6875/2023 | NC/IA/9076/2024 | NC/IA/5235/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Tanay Ayde
For the Respondents: Ms. Shruti
The court emphasized that delay compensation must align with contractual agreements, rejecting the application of unjust flat rates.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 - Delay in possession - Calculation of compensation for delay in delivery of possession was scrutinized. - Appellants contended that the State Commission adopted a flat rate for penalty without heeding the agreement clause specifying a slab rate for delays. - The court holds that the flat rate applied was unjust, based on previous judgments establishing a greater threshold for delay penalties. (Paras 1, 8, 19-24)
(B) Agreement terms - Terms in the apartment buyer's agreement were found to heavily favor the builder, suggesting unfair trade practices. (Paras 14-15)
Facts of the case:
This appeal arose from a complaint alleging deficiency in service due to delayed possession of an apartment. The Appellants claimed that while timely payments were made, possession was only offered without a completion certificate.
Findings of Court:
Compensation for delayed possession is recalibrated to 6% on the deposited amount from the originally stipulated date until the issuance of the completion certificate.
Issues: The primary issue centered on the applicability of delay compensation rates as per the apartment buyer's agreement versus the State Commission's ruling.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the State Commission failed to apply the agreed slab for compensation properly and thus the compensation awarded was inadequate.
Result: The appeal is partly allowed to reflect appropriate compensation for delayed possession.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court examined initial appeal process including delay and grounds for compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellants argued against flat penalty rates compared to established slab structure. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court noted inadequacies in the state commission's rationale for delay compensation. (Para 12 , 19) |
| 4. highlighted the unjust nature of compensation rates and clarified that established agreements must be honored. (Para 14 , 24) |
| 5. verdict issued adjusting compensation while recognizing rightful claim for delayed possession. (Para 20 , 25) |
ORDER
JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
1. This appeal was entertained on 11.08.2023, when the delay was condoned and the notices were issued. The order passed on 11.08.2023, records the issues raised in the appeal and is accordingly extracted herein under:
“Heard Mr. Tanay Ayde, learned Counsel for the Appellant. There is a stated delay of 19 days but the Registry has reported that there is a delay of 27 days.
Be that as it may, keeping in view the issues raised and even otherwise cause shown is sufficient and therefore deserves to be condoned, subject to the objection by the other side.
The contention raised is just two-fold. The State Commission has rendered the decision in favour of the Appellant, but learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Commission has ignored very vital aspects while extending relief, namely, the penalty for delayed possession that admittedly as per clause 14 is as follows:
14. Failure to deliver possession : Remedy Subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, in case of any delay (except for Force Majeure Clause 39 and conditions as mentioned in Clause 11(ii) and 11(iii) by the Company in completion of construction of said Apartment and the Allottee(s) not being in default/breach of the terms and conditions set out in Application Form / Agreement, the Company shall pay to the Allottee(s) delayed possession charges @ Rs.53.82 per sq. mt. (Rs.5/- per sq. ft.) / Rs.161.46 per sq. mt. (Rs.15 per sq. ft.) and Rs322.92 per sq. mt. (Rs.30 per sq. ft.) per month in respect of the Saleable area of the said Agreement for delayed period upto 4 months / more than 4 and up to 8 months and more than 8 months respectively (commencing after 36 months from the date of Agreement + 6 months’ fit out period on such extended periods) provided that all due instalments from the Allottee (s) were received in time or paid by the Allottee(s) along with interest for late payment within extended time frame allowed by the Company. The Allottee(s) agree and confirms that the compensation herein is a just and equitable estimate of the damages, which the Allottee(s) may suffer and the Allottee(s) agrees that he shall have no other right claims whatsoever. The adjustment of such compensation shall be done only at the time of execution of Sale deed of the said Apartment to the Allottee(s) first named.
Learned Counsel submits that while extending relief, the flat rate of Rs.5 per sq. ft has been pronounced, which is totally against the aforesaid admitted position in the agreement. Hence, the direction given is perverse. It deserves to be modified in accordance with Clause 14 of the agreement.
The second contention is also with regard to the date upto which the said calculation has to be made.
It is also urged, that even otherwise there are judgments indicating that when penalty on delayed possession is to be given, a certain proportion has to be maintained but looking to the nature of the relief claim, it is urged that the State Commission has completely ignored these aspects and has thus arrived at a wrong conclusion.
Prima facie the contentions appear to be entertainable.
Admit. Issue notice.
List the matter on 13.02.2024.”
2. The complaint filed by the complainants was allowed after contest holding that there was deficiency in service in delivering the flat in spite of the fact that the complainants had made timely payments. Accordingly the State Commission observed as under:
“11.
