Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

M/S Chintels India Ltd vs Sangeeta Agarwal on 10 October, 2022

Bench: Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh

                                                              1


                                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7108­7109/2022
                                         (@CIVIL APPEAL Diary No.28450/2022)


     M/S CHINTELS INDIA LTD                                                                Appellant(s)

                                                          VERSUS


     SANGEETA AGARWAL & ANR.                                                               Respondent(s)
                                                       O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.

2. Application seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned Orders is allowed.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. Issue notice.

5. Learned Advocate­on­Record, who is on caveat, accepts and waives formal notice on behalf of the respondents.

6. Leave granted.

7. The instant Appeals assail the Order dated 27­5­2022 and Review Order dated 28­7­2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, directing the appellant – Builder to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,69,96,575/­ to the respondents, with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND the Date: 2022.10.12 18:14:45 IST Reason: date of respective deposits till the date of payment. In addition to this, the respondents have been awarded Rs.50,000/­  2 towards litigation cost. Some of the facts proved on record are uncontroverted.

8. The Appellant – Builder was obligated to hand­over possession of Unit No.E­601 on 6th Floor of Tower `E’ to the respondents within a period of 6 months from the date of allotment agreement, with 6 months grace period, which too expired on 17­1­2018.

9. The respondents – Home buyers admittedly deposited the sale consideration of Rs.1,64,09,050/­ and in fact 50% payment was made by them in advance so as to avail the discount.

10. The appellant having failed to deliver the possession of the apartment even within the extended period, the respondents filed a complaint on 16­11­2018 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which was allowed vide impugned Order dated 27­5­2022 holding that there is deficiency in service on account of failure of the appellant to deliver the possession on time, as a result of which, the respondents were entitled to refund of the amount deposited by them with simple interest @ 9%. 11 Thereafter, the appellant filed a Review Application before the National Commission, which came be dismissed on 28­7­2022.

12. It further appears that the appellant relied upon a Declaration said to have been issued under Section 2 read with Section 11 of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 to the effect that the Occupation Certificate has been issued by the Competent Authority on 4­7­2019.

13. This document, in our considered view, does not advance the appellant’s case after the last date to handover possession expired on 17­1­2018. Even if the appellant was able to secure partial Completion Certificate/Occupancy Certificate from the Authorities after a delay of 1 year 5 months, it cannot and will not condone the deficiency in service.

14. As regards to the simple interest @ 9% awarded by the National Commission, it is undeniable that the appellant is entitled to charge 18% interest under the allotment agreement in the event of delay in making payments by the home buyers of due installments.

15. Having regard thereto, the discretion exercised by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in granting 9% simple interest to the respondents, does not call for interference by this Court and thus no case to interfere with the impugned Orders passed by the said commission, is made out.

16. The Appeals are thus dismissed in the above terms.

17. Pending application filed in these matters also stands disposed of .................J (SURYA KANT) .................J (M.M. SUNDRESH) NEW DELHI;

10TH OCTOBER, 2022.

 4 ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.13 SECTION XVII­A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL Diary No. 28450/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27­05­2022 in CCN No. 2562/2018 & Order dated 28­07­2022 in RA No. 147/2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) M/S CHINTELS INDIA LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANGEETA AGARWAL & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No.141797/2022­CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL, IA No.141802/2022­EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.141805/2022­STAY APPLICATION) Date : 10­10­2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abdesh Chaudhry, Adv. Mr. Vikas Pathak, Adv.

Mr. Anulag Atulya, Adv. Mr. Achlesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh , AOR Ms. Geetanjali Setia, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Nina Nariman, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Parolia, Adv. Mr. Piyush Singh, Adv.

Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Nithin Chandran, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.

Application seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned Orders is allowed.

Leave granted.

The appeals are dismissed, in terms of the signed order. Pending application filed in these matters also stands disposed of.

  (VISHAL ANAND)                                  (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR­cum­PS                           COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed Order is placed on the file)