Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Parsvnath Developers Ltd. vs Mallika Raghavan on 4 February, 2021
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.474/2020
PARSVNATH HESSA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
LT. COL. SHAILENDRA SINGH & ORS Respondents
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Broadly three contentions have been raised by the appellant- Parsvnath Hessa Developers Pvt. Ltd. The first is that the contesting respondent(s) approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “National Commission”) with primary relief of directing the appellant to hand over possession of the flat in question and in the alternative to refund the amount paid by him, whereas the National Commission proceeded to grant alternative relief without even discussing the primary relief of possession sought by the contesting respondent(s).
3. We find merit in this grievance put forth by the appellant. But, that alone cannot be the basis to reverse the judgment in question. For, indisputably, the appellant was not in a position to handover the possession of the flat within the time frame specified Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMAR Date: 2021.02.08 in 18:12:38 IST Reason: the contract and even thereafter until the contesting respondent(s) had filed complaint before the National Commission in November 2017, as also until the decision of the National 2 Commission dated 21.08.2018. The National Commission has adverted to that fact in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment. Be it noted that until this day the appellant is not in a position to handover possession of the flat referred to in the agreement. Hence, this ground by itself cannot be the basis to overturn the impugned judgment.
4. The next issue is whether the National Commission was justified in awarding simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund of the principal amount. The appellant has invited our attention to the decision of this Court in, “Gaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh” reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65, which has been followed in the case of “Fortune Infrastructure and Another vs. Trevor D’Lima and Others” reported in (2018) 5 SCC 442, to contend that compensation is required to be determined by the National Commission keeping in mind certain factors enunciated in the said decision.
5. Indeed, in the present case, the National Commission has awarded 10% per annum simple interest without undertaking the exercise of determining compensation payable to contesting respondent(s) in lieu of loss and damage suffered by them. However, this plea has been justly refuted by the contesting respondent(s) by placing reliance on the recent decision of this Court in “Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited Vs. Govindan Raghavan” reported in (2019) 5 SCC 725, wherein this Court reckoning the interest rate specified in Haryana Real Estate 3 (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, took the view that interest at the rate of 10% per annum in lieu of compensation cannot be said to be excessive or unjust. It is not in dispute that the Rules referred to in this decision are applicable to the project in question, after the same has come into force. Hence, in the peculiar facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to follow the dictum in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited (Supra) to hold that the interest awarded by the National Commission i.e. simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum in lieu of compensation payable to the complainant cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable.
6. Indeed, the counsel for the appellant made fervent appeal to follow the directions issued in other cases by this Court, where the interest rate awarded has been less than 10% per annum. In the present case, it has been brought on record that the contesting respondent(s) a former Army personnel had to secure housing loan from ICICI Bank to the extent of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- (Two Crores Ten Lakhs Only) for purchase of flat in the concerned project and for which he had to pay interest at the effective rate of 10.50% per annum. It is not necessary for us to enquire into the fact whether that loan amount has been refunded by the contesting respondent(s) or otherwise. Suffice it to observe that, in the facts of the present case simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum in lieu of compensation, directed to be paid to the contesting respondent(s) by National Commission is just and proper and we find no reason to deviate from the same.
4
7. Counsel for the appellant was at pains to persuade us to issue a direction to the contesting respondent(s) to take possession of the flat which will be offered within five months in terms of the commitment made in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.642 of 2020 in C.A. No.6664 of 2019 dated 04.01.2021. However, the issues to be dealt with in the said Contempt Petition are independent and need not be linked with the present appeal. So far as this appeal is concerned, as aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere.
8. Accordingly, leaving all other contentions raised by the appellant open, we would dismiss this appeal.
9. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
10. After this order was dictated, counsel for the appellant submitted that due to financial constraints, the appellant may not be in a position to repay the entire amount along with interest as directed by the National Commission. It is urged that the Court may permit the appellant to pay the decretal amount along with interest in twelve equal monthly installments.
11. Although, the counsel for the contesting respondent(s) initially objected to this suggestion, has left it to the discretion of the Court, provided the appellant must file an undertaking assuring the Court that no default will be committed in payment of monthly installments whatsoever.
12. The appellant is, accordingly, permitted to pay the decretal amount along with interest thereon at the same rate of 10% per 5 annum until payment, in twelve equal monthly installments commencing from March, 2021. Each monthly installment be paid on or before 10th of every English calendar month without fail. Undertaking to this effect of the Managing Director of the appellant-company to be filed within one week from today, failing which it will be open to the contesting respondent(s) to take appropriate measures/steps, as may be permissible in law.
All pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
…………………………………………J. [A.M. KHANWILKAR] …………………………………………J. [B.R. GAVAI] New Delhi 4th FEBRUARY, 2021 6 ITEM NO.2 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 473/2020 PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS MALLIKA RAGHAVAN Respondent(s) ([ONLY C.A. NO.474/2020 TO BE LISTED] IA No. 68770/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) WITH C.A. No. 474/2020 (XVII-A) IA No. 123656/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 123658/2020 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION IA No. 98985/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY IA No. 179882/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 04-02-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI For Appellant(s) Mr. Sachin Dutta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajesh P., AOR Mr. Manoranjan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vineet Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Deeptanshu Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sharan Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Prithu Garg, AOR Mr. Ketan Paul, Adv.
mr. Siddharth Mehta, Adv. Mr. Tushar Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Amartya Bhushan Adv. Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. No.474/2020 The Civil Appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed 7 order.
All pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
(JAGDISH KUMAR) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order in C.A. No.474/2020 is placed on the file)