IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4136 OF 2023 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. & ANR. APPELLANTS A1 : THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.

A2 : THE WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD THROUGH THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER VERSUS ARUNAVA BHATTACHARJEE & ANR. RESPONDENTS R1 : ARUNAVA BHATTACHARJEE R2 : MITHU BHATTACHARJEE

O R D E R

Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, the “NCDRC”) in Consumer Case No.1076 of 2017 in which, a direction has been passed by the NCDRC to pay the interest @6 per cent for a period of about ten months to the respondents, which reads as under:-

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by “9.(ii) OPs shall also be liable to pay delay SAPNA BISHT Date: 2025.11.11 Reason:

07.09.2015 (Committed date of possession) to the date of offer of possession or date of receipt of valid partial OC,whichever is later.”

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that during the interregnum, as per the exercise directed by this Court, the flooring of the flat in question has been changed and offer to take possession has also been communicated but the respondents have not given any reply. At this juncture, when called upon, learned counsel for the respondents submits that they are agreeable to take possession of the flat in question.

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellants further submits that the Court may interfere in the findings recorded by the NCDRC in its impugned order that the delay which was caused in making the offer for possession was not due to force majeure circumstances is contrary to the records as also the facts. Learned senior counsel submits that the same was due to there being a stay on construction, floods, refusal of the electricity company to lay cables to the building concerned, etc. Thus, it was submitted that though the Court may not interfere with 6% interest awarded for the period as indicated in the impugned order, the Court may set aside the reasoning given for such compensation as it will not only have a cascading effect but would also be laying a wrong precedent.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have been prevented from owing the flat for which they had paid the amount more than a decade ago. It was further submitted that the appellants had in fact, cancelled the allotment made to the respondents for the flat which through the impugned order stood restored. Thus, it was contended that the Court may award some compensation over and above what has been awarded in the impugned order.

6. Having considered the matter and also being assisted with regard to the quantum of compensation which the Court may consider over and above the 6% interest in terms of the impugned order as also to put a quietus to the entire issue once and for all, we dispose of the present appeal in the following manner:-

(i) The respondents shall take possession of the flat in question, within two weeks from today in the presence of the representatives of the appellants.

(ii) The impugned order holding that the circumstances due to which there was delay cannot be construed as ‘Force Majeure’, stands set aside.

(iii) The order to award simple interest @6% from 07.09.2015 (Committed date of possession) to the date of offer of possession or date of receipt of valid partial OC, whichever is later, is upheld. However, we clarify that the said period would be reckoned from 07.09.2015 till 05.07.2016. The appellants shall also be liable to pay a lump-sum compensation, beyond the 6% interest as indicated above, of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to the respondents, within two weeks from today.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the respondents are entitled to compen