Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd vs D.S. Dhanda, etc. etc.

8 months – SCDRC directed the appellant to hand over the physical possession of the units allotted to the respondents, complete in all respects within four months – National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) partially modified the order – On appeal, held: There is no surviving dispute in respect of extended period of handing over possession available to the appellant i.e 36 months, in view of the consent it obtained from the respondents to extend the period of handing over possession further by one year– It is categorical stand of the appellant that the flats have been completed and occupation certificate has also been obtained – SCDRC and NCDRC awarded compensation under multiple heads on account of singular default of not handing over possession–For delay in handing over possession, the consumer is entitled to the consequences agreed at the time of executing buyer’s agreement – Though the 1986 Act empowers the authorities to award compensation for any loss or injury including building damages but the order of NCDRC or SCDRC awarding compensation is by rule of thumb, without any foundation on judicially recognised principles – Complainant entitled to interest as offered, for not handing over possession, but present is not a case to award special punitive damages as one of the causes for late delivery of possession was beyond the control of the appellant – In view of the settlement proposal submitted by the appellant in earlier two set of appeals before Supreme Court in respect of the same project and to settle any further controversy, directions issued to the appellant. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Respondents-Complainants booked built up flats for purchase in one of the project of the appellant – Amount deposited by the respondents – Delay in delivery of possession of the flats – Award of interest – Held: Amount of interest is the compensation to the beneficiary deprived of the use of the investment made by the complainant – Therefore, such interest will take into its ambit, the consequences of delay in not handing over possession.

Words & Phrases – “Interest” – Meaning of – Discussed.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The similar dispute in respect of same project came up for decision before Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and Another Etc. v. Himanshu Arora and Another, Etc.. The said set of appeals were decided on consent granting interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Subsequently, another set of appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 2285-2330 of 2019 titled DLF Homes Panchkula (P.) Ltd. vs. Sushila Devi and Another came up for decision before Supreme Court including appeals filed by the Appellants as well as by the Complainants. Such appeals were also decided by consent. [Paras 6, 7] [1070-C-E]

1.2 The appellant offered for built up 1775 flats in its project the DLF Valley in Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex, Panchkula, Haryana. Some of the disputes settled in earlier two rounds of appeals, whereas, many complaints are still pending before different fora. There is no surviving dispute in respect of extended period of handing over possession available to the Appellant i.e. 36 months. By virtue of such extended period, the possession was required to be handed over on or about 11.02.2014. It is categorical stand of the Appellant that the flats have been completed and occupation certificate obtained from ETC.

the Office of Director, Town and Country Planning Department of State of Haryana. The NCDRC rightly held that compensation for loss, mental agony, litigation expenses and hardship, uncertainty and helplessness can neither be meagre nor exorbitant but has to be just and commensurate with the loss and injury. [Paras 12-14] [1072-B-D]

1.3 The District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is empowered inter-alia to order the opposite party to pay such amount as may be awarded as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party including to grant punitive damages. But the forums under the Act cannot award interest and/or compensation by applying rule of thumb. The order to grant interest at the maximum of rate of interest charged by nationalised bank for advancing home loan is arbitrary and no nexus with the default committed. The appellant has agreed to deliver constructed flats. For delay in handing over possession, the consumer is entitled to the consequences agreed at the time of executing buyer’s agreement. There cannot be multiple heads to grant of damages and interest when the parties have agreed for payment of damages at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month. Once the parties agreed for a particular consequence of delay in handing over of possession then, there has to be exceptional and strong reasons for the SCDRC/NCDRC to award compensation at more than the agreed rate. Though the 1986 Act empowers the authorities to award compensation for any loss or injury including building damages but the order of NCDRC or that of SCDRC of awarding compensation is without any foundation being laid down by the complainant on judicially recognised principles and is by rule of thumb. Therefore, grant of compensation under various heads granted by the NCDRC cannot be sustained. The amount of the interest is the compensation to the beneficiary deprived of the use of the investment made by the complainant. Therefore, such interest will take into its ambit, the consequences of delay in not handing over his possession. The SCDRC as well as NCDRC awarded compensation under different heads on account of singular default of not handing over possession. Such award under various heads in respect of the same default is not sustainable. Thus, the complainant is entitled to interest from the Appellant for not handing over possession as projected as is offered by it but it is not a case to award special punitive damages as the one of the causes for late delivery of possession was beyond the control of the Appellant. Therefore, in view of the settlement proposal submitted by the Appellant in earlier two set of appeals in respect of same project, and to settle any further controversy, the Appellant is directed as follows: i) To send a copy of the occupation certificate to the Complainants along with offer of possession. The Appellant shall also direct the Jones Lang LaSalle- the real estate maintenance agency, engaged by the Appellant to undertake such maintenance works as is necessary on account of damage due to non-occupation of the flats after construction etc. ii) It shall be open to the Complainants to seek the assistance of the maintenance agency to attend to the maintenance work which may arise on account of non-occupation or on account of natural vagaries. iii) Such maintenance work shall be completed by the Appellant within two months of the offer of possession but the payment of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum will be for a period of two months from the date of offer of possession in all situations. iv) Since the Complainants have been forced to invoke jurisdiction of the consumer forums, they shall be entitled to consolidated amount of Rs. 50,000/- in each complaint on all accounts such as mental agony and litigation expenses etc. The complainant shall not be entitled to any other amount over and above the amount mentioned above. v) In case, the original allottee has transferred the flat, the transferee shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of expiry of three years from the agreement or from the date of transfer, whichever is later. [Paras 16-19] [1072-H; 1073-A-H; 1074-A-G]

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4942-4945

OF 2019

(@SLP (C) Nos. 4363-4366 of 2019)

1.4 The grant of interest at the rate of 15% by SCDRC is highly excessive. Since in other two set of appeals decided earlier, Supreme Court had awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of refund, therefore, the order of SCDRC stand ETC.

modified so as to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund. However, in case any transfer of the flat, such interest will be payable from the date of expiry of three years from the date of agreement or from the date of transfer whichever is later. The Costs of Rs. 35,000/imposed by the SCDRC is maintained. The amount of refund be paid to the Complainants within two months along with the costs. [Paras 23-27] [1075-E-G]

Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Others vs. G.C. Roy (1992) 1 SCC 508 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 417 – relied on.

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. And Another Etc. v. Himanshu Arora and Another, Etc. [2019] 7

SCALE 678 ; DLF Homes Panchkula (P.) Ltd. v. Sushila Devi and Another [2019] 2 SCR 739 – referred to.