State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Krishna Devi vs Greater Noida Industrial Development ... on 15 September, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Complaint Case No. CC/40/2022 ( Date of Filing : 11 Apr 2022 ) 1. Krishna Devi Through Sri Suresh Singh Rawat POA Holder Of the Complainnant R/o 1620 DDA Janta Flat GTB Enclave Dilshad Garden Delhi ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Greater Noida Industrial Development Aouthority Plot No. 1 Knowledge Park 04 Greater Noida Gautam Budhh Nagar ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 15 Sep 2022 Final Order / Judgement Reserved State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow. Complaint no. 40 of 2022 Krishna Devi R/o 1620, DDA Janta Flats GTB Enclave Dilshad Garden, Delhi-93 ...Complainant. Versus Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority Plot No.01, Knowledge Park-04, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308 Through Chairman ...Opposite Party. Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President. Hon'ble Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member For the Complainant : Sri Divyanshu Bhatt and Sri Shashwat Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Sri Ajai Kumar Gupta and Sri Ravindra Kumar Bhati, Advocate Dated : 29 -09-2022 JUDGMENT
Per: Honbel Member Mr. Rajendra Singh: Heard Sri Divyanshu Bhatt and Sri Shashwat Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant and Sri Ajai Kumar Gupta and Sri Ravindra Kumar Bhati, learned Counsel for the opposite party.
The instant complaint has been filed under Section-47 read with (1)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 by Krishna Devi against the opposite party Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority with the following prayers:-
Facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant came across an advertisement of the Development Authority offering a new housing project in the name and style of "Scheme BHS 17 Omicron 1". The said project was a close match to the complainant's requirements. Therefore, the complainant in the year 2013 contacted the officials of the Development Authority and on the promises, proposals and guarantees, the complainant booked a Flat measuring 58 sq. ft. for which an amount of Rs.2,57,000/- has been paid by the complainant to the opposite party as registration amount alongwith the booking request application.
It has been stated by the complainant in her complaint that she has been allotted a unit bearing No. 412/B, Tower B of Sector Omicron-1 in the draw held on 15-01-2014 vide Allotment-cum-Allocation letter dated 29-01-2014. After the allotment the complainant was asked to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.22,68,700/- on or before 29-04-2014 i.e. within the next three months. The complainant made the requisite payment by Bank D.D. No. 093025 dated 29-04-2014.
It has been further stated by the complainant in her complaint that for payment of the huge amount she availed the home loan facility under the SBI-Max Gain Home Loan for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the State Bank of India, Delhi RACPC Branch and the Arrangement Letter dated 29-04-2014 has been issued by the Bank and the rate of interest is 10.1%. The opposite party vide Offer letter dated 04-07-2019 demanded additional charges from the complainant for the purposes of execution of the lease deed and completion of the remaining formalities in order to take the possession of the allotted property. Subsequently when the complainant visited the site of the project to inspect the allotted property, she found that the allotted property had been allotted to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. The complainant noticed that in Tower B on 4th floor, all the flats were registered to DMRC, including the allotted property of the complainant. The complainant alleges that there was a clear case of mismanagement or fraud on the part of the opposite party, much to the prpejudice of the complainant. The complainant was offered to take another allotted property, in lieu of the same. There were several reasons for which the complainant had chosen the allotted property specifically, including the location, spacing and design of the same, among others.
It has been alleged by the complainant in her complaint that having been left with no other alternative due to ill-motivated and fraudulent actions of the opposite party, the complainant was constrained to withdraw its application vide its application 15-10-2019, which was filed online for cancellation of the allotment and withdrawing the money deposited alongwith the applicable interest. Thereafter, after several follow-ups, and running from pillar to post, the complainant was refunded an amount nof Rs.15,08,873/- and Rs.15,93,237/- vide cheque dated 09-01-2020 and 25-02-2020 respectively, which included the money that was paid to the opposite party alongwith interst computed at 4% per annum. Therefore, the total amount returned to the complainant till date is Rs.31,02,110/-.
It is stated by the complainant in her complaint that the rate of interest at which a refund shall be provided to the consumer in case of default on the Authority's part has neither been provided in the brochure issued by the opposite party; nor the Allocation letter dated 29-01-2014 issued by the opposite party. The brochure and the allocation letter are the only two documents where such a clause ought to have been provided. The complainant in no way falls within the ambit of the force majeure clause as there was no situation that was beyond the control of the Authority and therefore it is a clear case of 'unfair contract'. The cheque was provided to the complainant only in March,2020 which was after a period of 5 months from the date of application of withdrawal.
It has been further stated by the complainant in her complaint that she filed a case before RERA Authority seeking that the complainant be granted an interest equivalent to the interest that it has incurred in paying the complete amount to the opposite party for purchasing the allotted property. The said complaint has been dismissed by the RERA Authority vide order dated 16-12-2020 on the ground that the complainant does not fall within the definition of the term "Allottee" for the purposes of Section 18 and therefore, the complainant cannot be granted any relief or orders in terms of Section 18 of the UP RERA Act.
The complainant further stated in the complaint that the complainant has accepted the amount paid to her at the interest rate of 4% per annum but the acceptance of that amount cannot be treated as a waiver of her right to get relief from this Commission. The complainant was the following reliefs:
The development authority be directed to pay the equivalent to the difference between the refund amount at a rate of 4% as given by the Development Authority and the refund amount that ought to be computable at the applicable rate of 10.1% per annum interest rate.
The Hon'ble state commission may pass any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble commission may deem just and proper under the circumstances the case, may also be passed in favour of complainant.
The opposite party has submitted his written statement stating that the complaint is based on wrong facts and this commission has no jurisdiction to hear the complainant's case. The subject matter of the case is situated in Gautam Budh Nagar so the present case should have been filed before the learned District Forum Gautam Budh Nagar. The complainant had chosen the alternative remedy for the refund of his amount deposited between 25.12.2020 and 07.01.2021 amounting to Rs.1,593,247/-and he accepted this amount with interest so now there is no dispute between the parties. The consideration is Rs.50 lakhs which is less than Rs.50 lakhs and this court has no jurisdiction. The complaint case is time barred. The cause of action arose in March 2020 and the present complaint has been filed on 11.04.22. The whole amount of the complainant, Rs.1,593,247/- has been returned to the complainant on the basis of compromise. The complainant has also filed a case before RERA which was dismissed on 16th December 2020. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant and he is not entitled to any relief from this Hon'ble State Commission, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Divyanshu Bhatt and Mr. Shashwat Singh and learned counsel for the opposite party Mr Ajay Kumar Gupta and Mr. Ravindra Kumar Bhati. We have also perused the pleadings, evidence and documents on record.
The present complaint is based on unfair contract which also includes unfair trade practice by the opposite party. Here the matter either may be valued at consideration paid or value of the goods. Except these considerations it may also be seen that it is related to unfair contract under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. So the state commission has jurisdiction to try this case.
The complainant has taken loans from the State Bank of India at a rate of 10.1% per annum. But the refund was made at a rate of 4% interest per annum which is malicious and illegal and also comes under unfair trade practice and unfair trade contract. As per the allotment cum allocation letter dated 29.01.2014 the allotment of flat was to be given to the allottee on a lease of 90 years and lease rent shall be payable in lump sum at the rate of 10% of the premium of the plot before execution of lease deed and possession. Another condition under this allotment letter is "allotment money shall be paid within 90 days from the date of allotment. In case the allottee fails to deposit the allotment money within 90 days from date of allotment, mentioned as the due date of deposit above, the allotment will be liable for cancellation and the money deposited till the date of cancellation will be forfeited." The condition of the allotment no doubt, unilateral and it will not bind the allottee.
We have also seen the brochure under which clause N says "execution of lease deed and possession - the possession is likely to be offered to the allottees within a period of three years from the date of issue of allotment letter. The allottee will be required to enter into legal documentation (execution and registration of lease deed) and take possession of the multistoried flat within the period of 60 days from the date of offer of possession/intimation to do so. In the event of failure to do so, allottee shall be liable to pay admin charges at the rate of 1% of the total premium for the extension of one year from the due date given to the execution of legal documents. If the allottee fails to execute legal documents within the extended time, action of cancellation of allotment and forfeiture of deposited money shall be taken."
On the one side hard condition has been imposed upon the allottee and on the other side the opposite party failed to deliver the possession within stipulated time. Such unilateral conditions and terms are not acceptable under rule of law. First we see that the allotment cum allocation letter is of 29.01.2014 . According to it the possession was to be handed over on 28.01.2017. The opposite party vide offer letter dated 04.07.2019 demanded additional charges from the complainant for the purposes of execution of the lease deed and completion of the remaining formalities in order to take the possession of the allotted property. Thereafter the complainant visited the site and to her utter surprise found that her allotted unit had already been allotted to Delhi Metrorail Corporation. Under what circumstances the flat allotted to the complainant has been allotted to DMRC? The counsel of the opposite party says that there was a letter issued to the complainant regarding the allotment of her allotted flat to DMRC, no reply forwarded in this regard to the complainant and only it is stated that the DMRC wanted flats for their employers in the bulk therefore it has been allotted to DMRC. Thus it is a clear violation of the terms and condition of the contract and that too unilaterally. Whether any power has been given by the complainant to the opposite party to transfer the allotted flat to DMRC? It is highhandedness and HOOGALISM on the part of opposite party.
The opposite party has also raised a question that the complainant went to the RERA so this commission has no jurisdiction to try this matter.
The Supreme court has answered the above-mentioned question in a judgment dated 2nd November 2020, passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Imperia Structures Ltd v Anil Patni & Another (Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020), the Supreme Court held that the redressal mechanism/provisions under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 (RERA) do not act as a bar to complaints under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (CP Act). The principles laid down in this judgment by the Supreme Court, find a place in a range of earlier series of decisions passed by various High Courts as well as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which has stated that allottees/homebuyers are well within their rights to avail remedies under the CP Act as well as RERA and even the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC).
This judgment has definitely explained that the allottees have the freedom to choose among RERA and the Consumer Forum to litigate for their rights in a land project. As the land business keeps on wrestling with the uncommon difficulties introduced by steadily developing liquidity emergencies and the current pandemic, the postponed ventures should plan for longer fights in court by virtue of conceivable commencement of new cases before RERA or the Consumer Forum. This judgment also paves a path for ending the dominance of developers over buyers by virtue of money power in litigation matters.
In order to make a better decision, the author has provided detailed differences between both acts.
Difference between Consumer Court and RERA Consumer Court RERA Only registered purchasers and allottees can file complaints.
Registered agency/purchaser here means 'any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force.
On the other hand, any of the agencies reflects the unregistered association which cannot come within Section 2(7)(i)[1] of the act hence cannot file a complaint.
Aggrieved persons can file complaints under Section 31 (1) of the RERA Act.
Section 31. (1) - Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. For the purpose of this subsection, persons shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force. The word person is defined under Section 2 (zg)[2].
A complaint before Consumer Court needs to be filed on plain paper with documentary evidence.
There is a specified format for filing a complaint before RERA. Every state's RERA official website will have its complaint section and the buyer has to fill in the requisite details in the form prescribed.
In the case of a consumer complaint, you have to file the complaint depending on the pecuniary limits. District commission can entertain complaints upto Rs. 1 crore and state commissions can entertain complaints only between Rs 1 crore and up to Rs 10 crore;
In case the value of the property is more than INR 10 crore then you will have to approach NCDRC.
You can file a complaint before the regulatory authority of the state where your property is situated. There are no pecuniary limits while filing a claim under RERA.
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has an investigation wing, headed by a Director-General, which may conduct an inquiry or investigation into consumer law violations, as given under Section 15 (1)[3] of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The CCPA has been granted wide powers to take suo-moto actions, recall products, order reimbursement of the price of goods/services, cancel licenses and file class-action suits if a consumer complaint affects more than 1 (one) individual.
Investigations can be conducted on a complaint by a buyer or suo moto against the builder. Section 35(1)[4] of the Act empowers the Real Estate Regulatory Authority to make an inquiry and investigate in relation to the promoter, allottee or the real estate agent, as the case may be. Section 35(1) of the Act provides that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority can either suo moto or on a complaint, initiate any inquiry and investigation into allegations against the promoter, allottee or the real estate agent, as the case may be. It is at the discretion of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority to appoint one or more persons to make an inquiry in relation to the affairs of the promoter, allottee or the real estate agent, as the case may be.
Under Section 41, any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed.
Under Section 51 (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in the exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 47 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the National Commission shall not entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days unless it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.
This implies that the finality of orders is faster under Consumer Court.
Under Section 43(5)[5] of the RERA Act, 2016 any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) can file an appeal. Such an appeal must state the grounds of fact and law on the basis of which the RERA order is challenged.
As stated in Section 44(2)[6] of the Act, the Appeal must be heard and disposed of within sixty days of filing. If this time limit is exceeded, the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) will have to give reasons to justify the delay. Thus, the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal is under a statutory duty to dispose of cases in a time-bound manner and not keep them pending.
Under Section 58(1), any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.
RERA does not bar remedies under Consumer Protection Act An appeal was preferred by Imperia Structures ("Builders/Developers/Appellant") in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against an order passed by National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ("NCDRC") with regard to complaints made by homebuyers/allottees. The homebuyers, collectively, had approached NCDRC and filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for unfair trade practice and deficiency in services owing to delay in handing over of possession of the concerned property/apartments.
Further, Imperia Structures challenged the jurisdiction of NCDRC. They put forth the issue that homebuyers/allottees have booked and bought the property/apartment for commercial purposes and hence, the said homebuyers would not qualify as consumers within the definition imparted under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. However, the NCDRC accepted the complaint filed collectively by homebuyers and vide order dated September 12, 2018 directed Respondents (i.e., builders/developer company) to return the amount paid by homebuyers along with litigation costs i.e., 50,000 and 9% interest per annum.
Consequently, the developers/builders approached and appealed against the order dated September 12, 2018 passed by NCDRC in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They contended that as the said project is registered under the provision of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("RERA") and lacks jurisdiction under Section 792 of RERA the concerned homebuyers/allottees do not have the right and authority to approach NCDRC. They further contended the issue that homebuyers bought the property for commercial purposes and hence, do not qualify as consumers within the definition of consumers under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The builder/developer company also contended that NCDRC does not have jurisdiction to entertain issues/complaints with regard to delay in possession, as the same falls under the purview of RERA.
Judgment and analysis The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the verdict in favour of the Homebuyers/allottees, upholding the decision of NCDRC. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that RERA and Consumer Protection Act are two different legislations and despite ongoing case at RERA, a consumer forum will always have the power to entertain cases wherein the homebuyers qualify as 'consumers' within the definition mentioned under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The whole idea behind Consumer Protection Act is to safeguard consumers and listen to their grievances.3 With regard to Section 79 of the RERA, the Hon'ble Court clarified its purpose and meaning. It held that the concerned provision i.e., Section 79 talks merely about the jurisdictional limits to Civil Courts, while Consumer forums are not Civil Courts.
Referring to Section 18 of RERA, the Apex Court observed that the concerned provision does not bar the aggrieved from perusing any other remedy and further recognizes others available remedies as well. Section 88 and 89 of RERA further justifies this finding of the Hon'ble Court. The laws enumerated under RERA are available in addition to other laws in force and hence, the same cannot compel an individual to withdraw his/her case or complaint from other forums.
Reference was laid on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the bench held that coexisting and parallel remedies are provided to aggrieved under RERA, Consumer Protection Act and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.4 This judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is a milestone for homebuyers/allottees. The same can be concluded by number of findings in the present judgment such as concurrent remedies under RERA as well as Consumer Protection Act, recognition of additional remedies etc. It further lays down attention on the newly enacted Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which also incorporates and provides similar stance and rights to the homebuyers/allottees.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case has held (some important paragraphs are QUOTED here ) "1- These appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the CP Act") are directed against the common judgement and order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") in Consumer Case Nos.3011, 3012, 3013, 3014, 3015, 3016, 3017, 3018, 3019 and 3020 of 2017. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid Consumer Cases are almost identical and for the present purposes the facts leading to the filing of Consumer Case No.3011 of 2017 are set out in detail and the appeal arising therefrom is taken as the lead appeal. The connected appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Commission in Consumer Case No.1605 of 2017 and raises same issues of fact and law. Delay in filing these appeals is condoned.
Similarly, all other complaints were allowed by the Commission granting relief of refund of the amounts deposited by each of the Complainants with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposits alongwith Rs.50,000/- towards costs. It was also directed that the amounts be deposited within four weeks, failing which the amounts would carry interest @ 12% per annum.
At the outset, we must deal with two factual issues. It was concluded by the Commission that; (i) all the Complainants were 'Consumers' within the meaning of the Act and that; (ii) there was delay on part of the Appellant in completing the construction within time. The stand taken by the Appellant at various stages, itself acknowledged that there was delay but the Appellant tried to rely on certain events as mentioned in ground (c) quoted hereinabove. In our view, the conclusions drawn by the National Commission in relation to these issues are absolutely correct and do not call for any interference.
The question whether the remedies available to the consumers under the provisions of the CP Act would be additional remedies, was considered by this Court in some cases, the notable cases being:-
In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs. and others , (2004) 1 SCC 305 this Court observed:-
"11. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the scheme of the 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi-judicial forums are set up at the district, State and national level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi-judicial forums, observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalties for non-compliance with their orders.
12. As per Section 3 of the Act, as already stated above, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers better, the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully in the context of the present case to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is a clear bar."
The issue in this case was whether in the face of Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 the concerned persons could avail remedies under the CP Act. Interpreting Section 3 of the CP Act, it was held that the remedy provided under the CP Act would be in addition to the remedies provided under the other Acts.
In National Seeds Corporation Limited vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another , (2012) 2 SCC 506 it was observed:-
"57. It can thus be said that in the context of farmers/growers and other consumers of seeds, the Seeds Act is a special legislation insofar as the provisions contained therein ensure that those engaged in agriculture and horticulture get quality seeds and any person who violates the provisions of the Act and/or the Rules is brought before the law and punished. However, there is no provision in that Act and the Rules framed thereunder for compensating the farmers, etc. who may suffer adversely due to loss of crop or deficient yield on account of defective seeds supplied by a person authorised to sell the seeds. That apart, there is nothing in the Seeds Act and the Rules which may give an indication that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not available to the farmers who are otherwise covered by the wide definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. As a matter of fact, any attempt to exclude the farmers from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act by implication will make that Act vulnerable to an attack of unconstitutionality on the ground of discrimination and there is no reason why the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act should be so interpreted.
Since the farmers/growers purchased seeds by paying a price to the appellant, they would certainly fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act and there is no reason to deny them the remedies which are available to other consumers of goods and services."
In this case the provisions of the CP Act and those under the Seeds Act, 1966 were considered.
In Virender Jain vs. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others , (2013) 9 SCC 383 it was observed by this Court as under:-
"13. The other question which needs to be considered is whether the District Forum should not have entertained the complaints filed by the appellants and directed them to avail the statutory remedies available under the Cooperative Societies Act. Shri Neeraj Jain vehemently argued that the forums constituted under the Act cannot grant relief to the appellants because the action taken by Respondent 1 was approved by the authorities constituted under the Cooperative Societies Act, who were not impleaded as parties in the complaints.
In our view, there is no merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel. In the complaints filed by them, the appellants had primarily challenged the action of Respondent 1 to refund the amounts deposited by them and thereby extinguished their entitlement to get the flats. Therefore, the mere fact that the action taken by Respondent 1 was approved by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and higher authorities, cannot deprive the appellants of their legitimate right to seek remedy under the Act, which is in addition to the other remedies available to them under the Cooperative Societies Act. Law on this issue must be treated as settled by the judgments of this Court in Thirumurugan Coop. Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha3, Kishore Lal v. ESI Corpn. and National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy2.
In the last mentioned judgment, National Seeds Corpn. Case4, this Court referred to the earlier judgments in Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi , Thirumurugan Coop. Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha3, Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. and Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports and held thatthe remedy available under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under other statutes and the availability of alternative remedies is not a bar to the entertaining of a complaint filed under the Act."
In this case the statutory remedies available under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 as against those under the CP Act was the matter in issue.
In Malay Kumar Ganguli vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee(2009) 9 SCC 22, it was held by this Court:-
"The proceedings before the National Commission are although judicial proceedings, but at the same time it is not a civil court within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may have all the trappings of the civil court but yet it cannot be called a civil court. (See Bharat Bank Ltd. V Employees and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corpn .
On the strength of the law so declared, Section 79 of the RERA Act does not in any way bar the Commission or Forum under the provisions of the CP Act to entertain any complaint.
Lastly, it may be noted that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred as, "2019 Act") was enacted by the Parliament "to provide for protection of the interests of consumers and for the said purpose, to establish authorities for timely and effectively administration and settlement of the consumers' dispute and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto". Sections 2(7), 2(33), 2(37), and 2(42)define expressions "Consumer", "Product", "Product Seller" and "Service" respectively. Sections 85 and 86 deal with liability of "Product Service Provider" and "Product Seller". Sections 100 and 107 of 2019 Act are to the following effect:-
"100. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
(1) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby repealed.
Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the Act hereby repealed shall, in so far as it Is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.
The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with regard to the effect of repeal."
Section 100 of 2019 Act is akin to Section 3 of the CP Act and Section 107 saves all actions taken or purported to have been taken under the CP Act. It is significant that Section 100 is enacted with an intent to secure the remedies under 2019 Act dealing with protection of the interests of Consumers, even after the RERA Act was brought into force.
Thus, the proceedings initiated by the complainants in the present cases and the resultant actions including the orders passed by the Commission are fully saved.
Resultantly, we reject all the submissions advanced by the Appellant. These appeals are accordingly dismissed affirming the view taken by the Commission. We quantify the costs at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to be paid by the Appellant in respect of each of the Consumer Cases, over and above the amounts directed to be made over to the Complainants and shall form part of the amount payable by the Appellant to the Complainants."
Now it is clear that the aggrieved person has right to move before the consumer fora and RERA has no bar . Consumer Protection Act is a special act. It may not object is to be seen.
This Consumer Protection Act covers entire goods and services of all sectors that are public, private, or cooperative sectors, except those exempted by the central government. The act provides a floor for a consumer where one can file their complaint against the product and the forum takes an action against the concerned supplier and compensation is granted to the consumer for the inconvenience he/she has encountered. The main objects of the consumer protection act are ;
To Provide better and all round protection to consumer.
To Provide machinery for the speedy redressal of the grievances.
To Create framework for consumers to seek redressal.
To Provide rights to consumers.
To Safeguarde rights of Consumers.
Let us know more about the rights and responsiblities of consumer. Listed below are the Rights of the Consumer Right to Safety- Before buying, a consumer can examine on the quality and guarantee of the goods and opt for ISI or AGMARK products.
Right to Choose- Consumer must have the right to choose from a variety and number of goods and in a competitive price Right to be informed- The buyers must be provided with complete information with all the necessary and adequate details of the product, make her/him act wise, and change the buying decision.
Right to Consumer Education- The consumer must be aware of his/her rights and avoid exploitation.
Right to be heard- The consumer will get due attention to express their grievances at a suitable platform.
Right to seek compensation- The consumer has the right to seek or ask for redressal against unfair and inhumane practices or exploitation of the consumer.
Listed below the responsibilities of the consumers Responsibility to be aware - A consumer has to be careful of the safety and quality of products and services before purchasing.
Responsibility to think independently- Consumer should be well bothered about what they want and need and hence make independent choices.
Responsibility to speak out- The buyer should be fearless to speak out their problems and tell to traders what they exactly want Responsibility to complain- It becomes the consumer's responsibility to express and file a complaint about their dissatisfaction with goods or services in a sincere and fair manner.
Responsibility to be an Ethical Consumer- Consumer must be fair and not engage themselves with any deceptive practice.
The Consumer Protection Act 1986 was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of Consumers Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected therewith (Preamble).
The Act Inter alia, seeks to promote and protect the rights of consumers such as --
right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property;
(2) right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;
(3) right to be assured, wherever possible, access to variety of goods at competitive prices;
(4) right to be heard and to assured that customers' interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums.
(5) Right to seek redressal against unfair practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and (6) Right to consumer education The objects are sought to be promoted and protected by the Consumer Protection Councils to be established at the Central and State levels.
The Act applies to all goods and services, except if otherwise provided by the Central Government by Notification. To provide speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes, a quasi judicial machinery is set up at the District, State and Central levels. The three tier system of quasi judicial bodies will observe the principle of natural justice and are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance of the orders given by the quasi judicial bodies have also been provided.
Thus the Consumer Protection Act is to serve the interests of the consumers. Consumer education and redressal of consumers' grievances are the two aspects of the Act. It makes good the loss a consumer suffers and increases the feeling of responsibility of the manufacturer, trader, supplier or businessman.
The provisions of the Act have to be construed in favor of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the Court while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and not contrary to attempted objective of the enactment.
Extent of Consumer Protection:
While other legislations may be either punitive or preventive, the Consumer Protection Act compensates the consumer. The provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any law at the time being in force (Sec 3). In Maine Container Services South Pvt Ltd v Go Garments 1998 (3) SCC 247 it has been held that the Contract Act applies to all litigants before the Commissioner under the Consumers Protection Act. Passengers traveling in train suffering injuries and loss of Jewelry as a result of assault by unruly crowd are eligible for filing of complaint before State Commission is maintainable notwithstanding the provisions of sections 100 and 103 of Railways Act, 1889. The Consumer Protection Act therefore gives the consumer an additional remedy besides those which may be available under other existing laws. Existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement is no bar to the entertainment of complaint by the Redressal Agency as the remedy under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law. However, the Consumer Forums under the Act have not taken over the jurisdiction of civil Courts. If the dispute between the parties is pending in Civil Court no Consumer Forum will adjudicate the dispute. Similarly if evidence be laid by the parties to the dispute is voluminous or complicated the parties will be referred to the appropriate Civil Court.
Consumers Protection Act, thus enshrines the rights of a consumer to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, price etc., of the goods to be protected against unfair trade practices, to seek inexpensive and expeditious redressal of grievances before the Consumer Forums. Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent piece of legislation to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation.
With the passage of time, the populace of the country is on hike and so are their opinions. Their opinion forms the basis for their interpretation, it may be a good or a bad interpretation. What would happen in the situation where people starting interpreting the laws? We might be flooded with several interpretations. The interpretations will be in such huge number that the laws will become unclear. This is the reason why lawmakers, while making the law, formulate it in accordance with the aim, set out by them, before penning down the legislations. The aim of any legislation defines the basis of the act. It becomes the ground norm of the act, based upon which the judiciary interprets the disputed texts.
The aim of any act forms the indispensable element, because it acts as the cord that delivers the real intention of the legislators behind the act. Whenever there is clash between two legislations, it is the aim of the legislation which makes the judges to derive at the endpoint in deciding which law has the superseding effect. It is through the doctrine of pith and substance that judges are able to derive at the major inclination towards one act over another act. This inclination is decided on the basis of the aim/goal of the act and the facts of that particular case.
Somewhat similar situation aroused in front of Supreme Court in the case of Aftab Singh and Others v. Emaar MGF Land Limited and Another ( Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017). In this case the Supreme Court cleared out the battle between arbitration and the statutory remedy when it comes upon solving the consumer disputes, which also upheld the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). In this case, the apex body for the consumer dispute in India (NCDRC) ruled in the favor of the statutory remedy over the arbitration.
The beneficial legislation of Consumer Protection Act aims at reducing the grievances of the all classes of customers by providing them the preferential treatment. According to the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer dispute is the entity where the consumer/ customers have been given the convenient safeguards against ample exploitation like bad customer service, faulty goods or any unfair trade practices. The interest of the customers is protected by setting up, the three tier quasi-judicial consumer Redressal machinery which are at national, state and district levels as per section 9 of Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) has been enacted in light of certain concerns related to public policy and the benefit of consumer.
In India, people are least aware with the consumer's rights and lags behind having low general understanding of arbitration as dispute resolution mechanism. The arbitration clause can curtail the grounds on which the consumers can raise the disputes, whereas on the other side the consumer protection act may grant the consumer various grounds on which he can file the complaint which may not be otherwise permitted in the standard form agreement having the arbitration clause."
Now we come to the facts of present case. It has been alleged by the complainant that having been left with no other alternative due to ill motivated and fraudulent actions of the opposite party, the complainant was constrained to withdraw its application vide dated 15.10.19 which was filed on 94 and of the allotment and withdrawing the money deposited along with the applicable interest. No such offer has ever been sent to the complainant in hardcopy and it is only email sent to her which was replied to email and in spite of it no hardcopy has referred to her. Her flat was allotted on 15.01.2014 and possession was to be handed over on 28.01.2017 but she was given an offer to withdraw his money with interest in the year 2019. The opposite party has already been defaulter on 28 January 2017 and they were liable to pay the compensation, damages, interest in view of the various judgements of the Hon'ble NCDRC and Hon'ble Supreme Court. But they very cleverly defended themselves and thereafter paid a meagre interest of 4% only on the money deposited. Now the condition was beyond the control of the complainant and she has no other option except to accept the proposal of the opposite party which comes under unfair contract and unfair trade practice including deficiency of service at the extreme level. The counsel for the opposite party has submitted that they have allotted the flat of the complainant to the DMRC without the consent of the complainant. We will also see some judgements of Hon'ble NCDRC and Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding damages and compensation which may be awarded to the complainant under the relief clause of the complaint were she has prayed for any order or direction, which this Hon'ble commission may deem just and proper under the circumstances of the case.
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3533-3534 OF 2017 M/S. FORTUNE INFRASTRUCTURE (NOW KNOWN AS M/S. HICON INFRASTRUCTURE) & ANR. VS TREVOR D'LIMA & ORS. ( Judgement March 12, 2018 ) has held:
In the above-mentioned case Hon'ble Supreme Court also held regarding payment of compensation or quantum of compensation as follows:
" 15. Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/complainants is entitled to ?"
Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held regarding payment of compensation:
"18. This Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65, has observed that there is no fixed formula for fixing damages in the following manner '8. However, the power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of 18% per annum. As seen above, what is being awarded is compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss or injury. It therefore necessarily has to be based on finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. Thus, the Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down, however, a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure. The Commission/Forum would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be determined on basis of loss of rent which could have been earned if possession was given and the premises let out or if the consumer has had to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent actually paid by him. Along with recompensing the loss the Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury, both mental and physical. Similarly, compensation can be given if after allotment is made there has been cancellation of scheme without any justifiable cause. That compensation cannot be uniform and can best be illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be returned. In cases where possession is being directed to be delivered the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot. Therefore, the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher. ... We clarify that the above are mere examples. They are not exhaustive. The above shows that compensation cannot be the same in all cases irrespective of the type of loss or injury suffered by the consumer." (emphasis supplied) In Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725, there was a delay of almost two years in obtaining an occupancy certificate after the date stipulated in the ABA. As a consequence, there was a failure to provide possession of the flat to the purchaser within a reasonable period. This Court dwelt on the terms of the ABA under which the builder was entitled to charge interest at 18 per cent per annum for the delay in payment of instalments by the purchaser. On the other hand, the failure to provide possession on the part of the developer was subject to a grace period of twelve months followed by a termination notice of ninety days and a further period of ninety days to the developer to effect a refund. Adverting to these clauses, the court noted:
"6.4. A perusal of the apartment buyer's agreement dated 8-5- 2012 reveals stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For instance, Clause 6.4(ii) of the agreement entitles the appellant builder to charge interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of instalments from the respondent flat purchaser. Clause 6.4(iii) of the agreement entitles the appellant builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the agreement, if any instalment remains in arrears for more than 30 days. On the other hand, as per Clause 11.5 of the agreement, if the appellant builder fails to deliver possession of the apartment within the stipulated period, the respondent flat purchaser has to wait for a period of 12 months after the end of the grace period, before serving a termination notice of 90 days on the appellant builder, and even thereafter, the appellant builder gets 90 days to refund only the actual instalment paid by the respondent flat purchaser, after adjusting the taxes paid, interest and penalty on delayed payments. In case of any delay thereafter, the appellant builder is liable to pay interest @9% p.a. only. Another instance is Clause 23.4 of the agreement which entitles the appellant builder to serve a termination notice upon the respondent flat purchaser for breach of any contractual obligation. If the respondent flat purchaser fails to rectify the default within 30 days of the termination notice, then the agreement automatically stands cancelled, and the appellant builder has the right to forfeit the entire amount of earnest money towards liquidated damages. On the other hand, as per Clause 11.5(v) of the agreement, if the respondent flat purchaser fails to exercise his right of termination within the time limit provided in Clause 11.5, then he shall not be entitled to terminate the agreement thereafter, and shall be bound by the provisions of the agreement."
Hon'ble Justice Indu Malhotra speaking for the Court noted:
"6.8. A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the agreement dated 8-5-2012 are ex facie one-sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the builder." The Court observed that in these circumstances, the flat purchasers could not be compelled to obtain possession which was offered almost two years after the grace period under the agreement had expired. Hence, the NCDRC was held to have correctly awarded interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum.
In the case of PRIYANKA MITTAL & ANR. V. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. (NCDRC). These appeals arise out of single order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 25.2.2015 in Complaint Nos. 18 of 2013- Nalin Bhargava & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 34 of 2013- Jasleen Viswanathan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 58 of 2011- Janmejai Mani Tiwari Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 68 of 2013- Indu Singh Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 69 of 2013- Poonam Sagar Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 86 of 2010- Priyanka Mittal & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 101 of 2011- Mohd. Aslam Khan & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 130 of 2012- Dr. Sunil Kr. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 49 of 2012- Neera Mittal &Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 74 of 2011- Deepak Bhalla Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 87 of 2010- Syed Gufran Ali Alvi & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 96 of 2011- Uppasana Malik Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 175 of 20130- Umesh Chandra Dixit & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr.; 97 of 2011- Pravin Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. which complaints were partly allowed.
The Hon'ble NCDRC held that:
"Brief facts of the cases are that opposite parties/respondents are engaged in the activity of housing construction and accordingly they have launched a project named as Parsvnath Planet situated in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The project was demonstrated to be very lucrative and made attractive to the vendees, in order to procure/collect money from the needy persons demonstrating themselves to be excellence in the field of construction activity as compared to other builders and assured the buyers/complainants that it has been duly approved by the Lucknow Development Authority and necessary permission has also been obtained from them. The emphasis was made by the opposite parties that the possession of the Unit shall be given within a scheduled period of 36+6=42 months stipulated in agreements executed in between the parties for the project launched in the year 2006. The complainants/appellants attracted by the promise and assurance of the opposite parties, somehow managed and arranged the money from their personal sources as well as on loan at attractive rate of interest and the hard earned money was paid by them to the opposite parties in a hope that the possession of the units shall be provided to them in the year 2009 and they can leave peacefully in their own houses, since the complainants are living in rented houses.
The complainants visited the construction site of the opposite parties after depositing the entire amount, where it was revealed that the construction activities were on halt and the persons available on the site told the complainants that the apartments are likely to be completed till 2015. Even the partial construction done by the opposite parties was defective and did not match the specifications provided in the agreement. The complainants were shocked on hearing it and observing the site. The complainants immediately contacted the Area Manager, who told the complainants that there is some delay in the construction of the apartment and the apartments shall be ready till June, 2010. The complainants have to repay the amount taken on loan alongwith interest without getting the possession of the allotted units causing irreparable loss and injury to them. The complainants have come to know that the opposite parties have invested the funds earmarked for this project into their other projects in other city due to which they have not been able to complete the project in time. Besides this, it has also come to the light that although the opposite parties had collected huge funds from the buyers but in spite of that the opposite parties have miserably failed to pay the dues of Lucknow Development Authority which forced the Lucknow Development Authority to issue coercive measures against the opposite parties for the recovery of their dues. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties/ respondents, complainants filed separate complaints before State Commission. Aggrieved by the order of Hon'ble State Commission, these appeals preferred before Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Hon'ble NCDRC discussed various case laws and after hearing the parties held, "Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that as complainants have been deprived of possession for a long period beyond agreed period, it amounts to restrictive trade practice under Section 2 (nnn) of Consumer Protection Act and complainants are entitled to get compensation. Section 2 (nnn) runs as under:- means a trade practice which tends to bring about restrictive trade practice manipulation of price or its conditions of delivery or to affect flow of supplies in the market relating to goods or services in such a manner as to impose on the consumers unjustified costs or restrictions and shall include- Delay beyond the period agreed to by a trader in supply of such goods or in providing the services which has led or is likely to lead to rise in the price; Any trade practice which requires a consumer to buy, hire or avail of any goods, or, as the case may be, services as condition precedent to buying, hiring or availing of other goods or services; Perusal of aforesaid provision reveals that when opposite party delays in delivery of goods which leads to rise in the price of goods meaning thereby, more price is charged from complainant, it amounts to restrictive trade practice. In the case in hand, opposite party on account of delayed delivery of possession is not charging higher rate than the agreed rate for delivery of possession of flat, so, it does not fall within the purview of restrictive trade practice under Section 2(nnn) of Consumer Protection Act. "
"Admittedly, agreements were executed in 2006 and as per agreements, possession of flats was to be delivered within 42 months, meaning thereby, possession was to be given in the year 2009-2010 and possession has not been handed over so far though year 2016 has started. No doubt, complainants are entitled to get penalty amount for delayed delivery of possession as per clause 10 ( c) of the agreement but opposite party cannot be permitted to avail benefit of aforesaid clause for indefinite period. This penalty clause should be allowed for the benefit of parties for a limited period and in the cases in hand, I deem it appropriate to extend applicability of aforesaid clause for a period of one year beyond 42 months and after that, complainants are certainly entitled to compensation. Opposite party cannot be allowed to avail huge funds of complainants by paying merely Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. for example, complainants who have purchased flat measuring 164.901 sq. mtr., they have made payment of about Rs. 31.00 to 32 lakhs and in the garb of clause 10 (c), opposite party is paying penalty @ approximately Rs. 9,000/- per month against enjoying funds more than Rs. 30.00 lakhs. As complainants have been deprived to shift to their flats for a long period which would not only have given them satisfaction of living in their own house but also have raised their social status and opposite party has enjoyed funds of complainants for a long period, I deem it appropriate to allow compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m. to the complainants who have applied for flats upto 175 sq. mtr and Rs. 20,000/- per month to complainants who have applied for flats above 175 sq. after 54 months of execution of agreement till delivery of possession. "
Against this judgment, parties went to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is:-
In Nalin Bhargava vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc and other related civil appeals on 13 July, 2018, Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.CA 6662/2018 @ SLP(C) 7596/2016 etc. It is submitted by Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals that the possession has been handed over and the deficiencies have been removed and, therefore, he has no grievance. However, Mr. Lahoty would insist that there should be imposition of costs as compensation.
Mr. Sachin Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the developer has raised objections with regard to imposition of costs.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the cause of justice would be best subserved if each of the appellants in the present appeals are given Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) per flat, towards costs. When we say "cost", we mean costs alone and nothing else."
These builders are just earning money from the consumers to whom they issued allotment letters and got a huge amount. They keep this amount for a long time and earn interest on it. Property dealing is that part of business where they never pay a penny to the consumers on their amounts deposited for a long-term or if they pay, they pay a meagre interest of about 5% or so but they charge 18 to 24% or more if the consumers default in depositing any instalment. It reminds us the story of "The Merchant of Venice" The Merchant of Venice is the story of a Jewish money lender Shylock who demands that an antisemitic Christian offer "a pound of flesh" as collateral against a loan. These acts of builders also remind us the age of Sahukari during ancient India and also during British Raj. Whether these builders have power to frame their own law? They put their terms and conditions in such a way that the sufferer will always be the consumer. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been enacted for the benefits of consumers, so the courts dealing with Consumer Protection Act 1986 should come forward for their rescue. The courts are not governed by the builders but they are governed by the law, Custom and Usages. Now in the background of all the facts and also the facts of the present case, we will also discuss something more.
Now in this case the complainant was defrauded by the party in terms of money and in terms of contract. In spite of all these facts they should have ashamed on themselves and despite of it they provided a meagre interest rate of only 4% on her deposited amount. We are inclined to pass the following order in view of the relief (ii) of the complaint case in addition to relief clause (i) and also keeping in view all the above mentioned judgements of the Hon'ble NCDRC and on the Supreme Court. We will take cut of date in this case as 28 January 2017 ending on 15.10 2019 when she submitted her application online. Thus she is entitled for the following reliefs:-
She is entitled to get interest at a rate of 10.1% on her deposited amount from the date of respective deposits till 15.10.2019 within eight weeks from the date of judgement of this complaint case otherwise she will get interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of respective deposits till 15.10.2019.
She is entitled to receive Rs.15,000 per month from 28.01.2017 till 15.10.2019 with interest at a rate of 10% from 28.01.2017 till 15.10.2019 within eight weeks from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise she will get interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 28.01.2017 till 15.10.2019.
She is entitled to receive lump-sum damage of Rs.1.5 lakhs in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment (supra) to be paid within eight weeks from the date of judgment of this complaint case failing which the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum after eight weeks till actual payment of this amount.
The complainant is entitled to get Rs.30 lakhs towards mental torture, depression, harassment, unfair trade contract, deficiency of services, cheating, fraud, etc. to be paid within eight weeks from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the opposite parties shall pay interest at a rate of 10% after eight weeks till actual payment of this amount.
The present complaint is decided accordingly.
ORDER The opposite party is directed to pay interest at a rate of 10% on her deposited amount from the date of respective deposits till 15.10.2019 within eight weeks from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise she will get interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of respective deposits till 15.10.2019. The interest paid already shall be adjusted to this interest.
The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000 per month from 28.01.2017 till 15.10.2019 with interest at a rate of 10% from 28.01.2017 till 15.10.2019 within eight weeks from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 28.01.2017 till 15.10.2019.
The opposite party shall pay Rs.1.5 lakhs towards damages to the complainant within eight weeks from the date of judgment of this complaint case and if not paid within eight weeks the opposite party shall pay interest at a rate of 10% after eight weeks till actual payment of this amount.
The opposite party shall pay Rs.30 lakhs to the complainant towards mental torture, depression, harassment, unfair trade contract, deficiency of services, cheating, fraud, etc. to be paid within eight weeks from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the opposite parties shall pay interest at a rate of 10% after eight weeks till actual payment of this amount.
The opposite parties shall pay Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the case to the complainant within eight weeks from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the opposite parties shall pay interest at a rate of 10% after eight weeks till actual payment of this amount.
If the compliance of the judgement is not made within eight weeks from the date of judgment of this complaint case the complainant may file execution against the opposite party at the cost of the opposite party.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Rajendra Singh) (Justice Ashok Kumar) Member President Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to record. (Rajendra Singh) (Justice Ashok Kumar) Member President Dated September 29, 2022 JafRi,PAII C-1 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] JUDICIAL MEMBER