Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service – UP Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010 – s.4(5) – RERA Act, 2016 – s.19(10) – Offer of possession made without completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate, if valid and lawful:
Held: No – Appellant consistently raised this issue asserting that a valid offer of possession cannot be made without these documents – s.4(5) of the UP Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010 and s.19(10) of the RERA Act, 2016 mandate that a developer must obtain these certificates before offering possession – Despite the appellant’s repeated requests, ADA failed to produce these certificates, rendering its offer of possession incomplete and legally invalid – ADA’s failure to provide the required certificates justifies the appellant’s refusal to take possession – Thus, appellant entitled to additional compensation to compensate for the delay caused by ADA’s breach of its statutory obligations – On facts, in view of the shortcomings on the part of both the appellant and the ADA, compensation provided to the appellant apart from what was awarded by NCDRC – Therefore, apart from the refund of the entire amount deposited by the appellant @ 9% interest p.a. from 11.07.2020 (the date of the complaint) till the date of refund, ADA to pay an additional compensation amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the appellant – ADA also to return the non-judicial stamp worth Rs. 3,99,100/- back to the appellant. [Paras 20, 21] Consumer Protection – Limitation Act, 1963 – ss.18, 19 – Complaint of the appellant, if was barred by limitation – Plea of the respondent-Agra Development Authority (ADA) that the complaint was filed by the appellant in 2020 after six years from the date of offering possession in 2014 and as such was barred by limitation:
Held: The complaint was not barred by limitation – The ongoing interactions between the parties, including ADA’s acceptance of part payment in 2019 and the reminders sent, effectively extended the limitation period – NCDRC correctly applied ss.18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which extend the limitation period where part payments or acknowledgments are made – Thus, cause of action continued to exist and the filing of the complaint in July 2020 was within the limitation period. [Paras 16, 17] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Pecuniary jurisdiction – Value of the claim – Determination – Objection raised by the respondent-Agra Development Authority as regards the pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC contending that as the amount deposited by the appellant was only Rs. 59,91,000/- i.e. less than Rs. 1 crore, the complaint ought to have been filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the NCDRC would have no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint with a value of less than Rs. 1 crore: Held: No merit in this argument – In consumer disputes, the value of the claim is determined not just by the amount deposited but by the aggregate relief sought, which includes compensation and other claims – Claim made by the appellant was not limited to the deposit amount alone but also included compensation for mental agony, harassment, and loss of income, which brought the total claim well above Rs. 1 crore – NCDRC rightly held that it had the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. [Para 19]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.