Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.23 – Two consumers booked one residential flat each in a building project, which appellant was to construct – Separate agreements in the year 2012 were entered into, by both the consumers with appellant – Possession of flats was to be delivered by August 2014 – Though sum of Rs.85,86,911/- had been deposited in respect of each flat, no possession was delivered by the appellant by August 2014 – The two consumers filed separate complaints against the appellant – During the pendency of the matters, the possession of flats was offered by the appellant vide letter dated 16.11.2016 and which was subsequently taken by the complainants – Commission, interalia, directed appellant to pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount paid by the consumers/complainants, w.e.f. 01.09.2014 till the date on which the possession was actually delivered to complainant – Appellant contended that the time lost between 21.12.2012 till 07.05.2013 was on account of mandatory requirement for re-submission of plans, therefore, the appellant was entitled to have that period extended – On appeal, held: The period between 21.12.2012 to 07.05.2013 was completely explained by the appellant, as it was mandatorily required to resubmit the plans and get fresh NOC in respect of fire safety permission – Thus, out of the period between August, 2014 till 16.11.2016, the appellant was entitled to have a period of 6 months of extension as per the agreements – Deposited sum in either case was Rs.85,86,911/- – Interest @ 8% p.a. awarded on the deposited amount by the Commission for the remaining period of one year and 8 months was in region of Rs. 11.4 lakhs – Considering the entirety of the matter, instead thereof, lumpsum compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to the complainants in respect of each case. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant is justified in saying that as a result of mandatory requirements to re-submit the plans and get the fresh NOC in respect of fire safety permission, the period between 21.12.2012 to 07.05.2013 stood completely explained. Thus, out of the period between August, 2014 till 16.11.2016, the appellant would be entitled to have a period of 6 months of extension. That still leaves us with a period of a year and 8 months. The Commission has awarded 8% interest on the deposited sum. The deposited sum in either case being Rs.85.86 lakhs, going by the direction issued by the Commission, the interest element in respect of the period of one year and 8 months would be in the region of Rs.11.4 lakhs. Further, considering the second part of the submission. It is true that there was no complete ban on sand mining. But as a result of reduced availability of sand in the market, the demand and supply ratio must have been upset. The appellant would therefore be entitled to some benefit on that count. [Para 13][220-E-G]
2. Considering the entirety of the matter, a lumpsum compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to the respondent in respect of each case. Therefore, the directions issued by the Commission are modified. [Para 14][220-H; 221-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.