Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Arun Kapil vs Himachal Pradesh Housing on 29 March, 2019
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3321 OF 2019
(@ SLP(C) No. 12589 of 2016 )
Arun Kapil Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Respondent(s)
Development Authority
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 reversed the concurrent findings which were arrived at by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum2 and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission3.
The appellant was allotted a house on hire purchase basis for a consideration of Rs 6,82,000. The house was situated at No 75, Naya Nagar, Hamirpur (HP). The dispute between the parties related to the claim of the appellant that there were deficiencies in the construction and the respondent had failed to discharge its contractual obligations. Signature Not Verified
The DCDRF, by its order dated 20 March 2007 awarded a sum Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2019.04.02 16:43:02 IST Reason: of Rs 70,766 together with interest at the rate of 9% from the 1 “NCDRC” 2 “District Forum” 3 “SCDRC” 2 date of the complaint (9 March 2005). This order was affirmed by the SCDRC. The NCDRC reversed these findings, holding that the possession was taken on “as is where is basis” and the complaint was barred by limitation.
On 19 January 2001, the respondent addressed a communication to the appellant specifically stating thus:
“Please refer to your letter dated 13.11.2000 on the subject cited above.
It is informed that an estimate has been approved to rectify the defects pointed out by you in the house allotted to you and repair work is being taken by the filed officer.
You are, therefore, requested to confirm whether you are interested to retain the allotment or take refunds. In case, you want to take refund 50% of the earnest money deposited by you will be forfeited under Clause 13-C(3) of the allotment Management and Sale of Houses/Plots/Flats Regulations,1973. Your confirmation in this regard should reach this office on or before 31.01.2001 positively.” (emphasis supplied) Subsequently, in a letter dated 7 December 2001 the respondent informed the appellant that as a result of a stay granted by the Civil Court, “protection work” adjoining the house allotted to the appellant could not be taken in hand.
The claim was finally rejected on 2 February 2005. A complaint was filed immediately thereafter on 9 March 2005. The complaint is, therefore, clearly within limitation.
On the merits, in view of the letters dated 19 January 2001 and 7 December 2001 of the respondent, we find no justification for the NCDRC to reverse the considered findings 3 of the DCDRF and the SCDRC.
However, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the award of a lump sum by way of compensation to the appellant will meet the ends of justice.
We accordingly direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) to the appellant within a period of four weeks from today failing which the amount as awarded shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of the order.
The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is, allowed in the above terms. No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.............................J. (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD) .............................J. (HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI MARCH 29, 2019 4 ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12589/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-09-2015 in RP No. 1321/2010 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) ARUN KAPIL Petitioner(s) VERSUS HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING Respondent(s) Date : 29-03-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rachana Joshi Issaar, Adv.
Mr. K. Vaijayanthi, Adv.
Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Adv.
Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Y. Prabhakara Rao, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(ASHWANI THAKUR) (SUNIL KUMAR RAJVANSHI) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER