Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. vs Himanshu Arora on 19 November, 2018
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11097 OF 2018
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.12603/2018)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1109811138 OF 2018
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.2585025890/2018)
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD. & ANR. ETC. .. Appellant(s)
Versus
HIMANSHU ARORA & ANR. ETC. .. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
1. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission(‘NCDRC’) by a Judgment and Order dated 11 December,
2017 disposed of a batch of appeals arising from a decision
rendered on 5 December, 2016 by the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (‘SCDRC’). Finding the appellants in
default of their obligations to the flat purchasers, the SCDRC
directed the appellants to pay compensation. The relevant part
of the directions is extracted below :
“(iii) To pay compensation, by way of
Signature Not Verified
interest @ 12% p.a., on the deposited amount,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
to the complainant(s), from 07.01.2014 in
Date: 2018.11.29
15:40:36 IST respect of Complaint No.508/2016 and from the
Reason:
respective dates as given in Column No.5 in
Table – A in respect of eight complaints
1
indicated therein, till 30.11.2016, within 45
days, from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order, failing which, the said
amount(s) shall carry penal interest @ 15%
p.a.,instead of 12% p.a., from the date of
default, till realization.
(iv) To pay compensation by way of interest @
12% p.a. on the deposited amounts, to the
complainant(s) w.e.f. 01.12.2016, onwards
(per month), till possession is delievered,
by the 10th of the following month, failing
which, the same shall also carry penal
interest @ 15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a.,
from the date of default, till payment is
made.
(v) Pay compensation, in the sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony,
physical harassment and deficiency in
service, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs,
to the complainant(s), within 45 days from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of
the order, failing which, the said amount(s)
shall carry interest @ 12% p.a., from the
date of filing the complaint(s) till
realization.”
2. In appeal, the NCDRC reduced the rate of interest from 12
per cent to 9 per cent.
3. The grievance of the appellants is that while reducing the
rate of interest, the NCDRC extended the period over which
interest is liable to be paid. As a result, the liability in
monetary terms under the impugned order of NCDRC is stated to be
higher than under the directions of the SCDRC, despite the
reduction in the rate of interest. The SCDRC, in the submission
of the appellants, distinguished between those flat buyers who
were seeking possession and those who were seeking a refund of
monies. For those who were seeking possession, interest was
made payable by the SCDRC from the anticipated date of
2
possession, whereas the NCDRC, according to the appellants, has
obliterated the distinction between those who sought possession
and those who were seeking refund of their monies.
4. On 18th May, 2018, the following Order was passed by this
Court :
“Delay condoned.
Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners.
Issue notice and stay of further proceedings,
subject to the petitioners deposit the amount
determined by the order of the State
Commission within a period of four weeks from
today.”
5. In pursuance of this Order, a deposit was made of an amount
of Rs.5,00,51,784/- (Rupees Five Crores Fifty One Thousand Seven
Hundred Eighty Four) which has been recorded in the Order dated
18th June, 2018, which reads as follows :
“Let the amount of Rs.5,00,51,784/- (Rupees
Five Crores Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred
Eighty Four), deposited by the petitioners on
14.06.2018, be deposited in an interest
bearing Fixed Deposit in a nationalised Bank,
initially for a period of six months, to be
renewed from time to time.”
6. Mr. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel has placed a
chart on the record. The chart indicates the amount which
according to the appellants would have been payable in terms of
Clause 15 of the Agreement between the parties, where
compensation is liable to be computed at Rs.10 per sq. ft. of
the saleable area for a delay beyond 24 months or such extended
periods as permitted under the Agreement. The Chart also
3
indicates the amount which was liable to be paid in terms of the
Order of the SCDRC (at 12 per cent after 3 years from the
Agreement date) and compensation computed in terms of the Order
of the NCDRC at 9 per cent (from the date of payment). The
chart indicates that in terms of the order of the SCDRC, the
appellants would be liable to pay an amount of Rs.364.27 Lakhs
to 28 flat purchasers whereas in terms of the Order of the
NCDRC, the liability of the appellants would be Rs.564.67 Lakhs.
7. We are not inclined to enquire into the merits of the
computation which has been placed on the record on behalf of the
appellants. However, it emerges from the submissions which we
have recorded earlier that the real grievance of the appellants
is that though in the appeal filed in NCDRC by them, the rate of
interest was reduced from 12 per cent to 9 per cent, the period
over which interest would be payable to those seeking possession
has been extended back to the date of payment of monies as a
result of which the liability of the appellants has actually
increased.
8. Having regard to the above submission, we indicated to the
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the flat purchasers that
it would be appropriate if the interest as ordered by NCDRC at
9% per annum is made payable over the period which was
determined by the Order of the SCDRC. There is no objection by
the flat purchasers to the aforesaid modification being made.
Even otherwise, we are of the view that such a modification
would be required in the interests of justice since it was the
appellants who had questioned the Order of the SCDRC before the
4
NCDRC.
9. In the above facts and circumstances, we confirm the
direction of the NCDRC that the appellants shall pay interest
@ 9 per cent per annum. However, the period over which interest
shall be payable will be in conformity with the Order passed by
the SCDRC.
10. We also direct that in computing the interest payable in
terms of the Order of the NCDRC to the extent modified above,
the appellants would be entitled to credit for the compensation,
if any, which has been paid to any flat buyer in terms of Clause
15 of the flat purchase agreements. In other words, the amount
of interest payable shall be computed after deducting any amount
that has been paid to the concerned flat buyer under Clause 15
of the agreement.
11. The amount which has been deposited in this Court in
pursuance of the Order dated 18.5.2018, shall be transferred by
the Registry to the Registrar of the SCDRC, Chandigarh. The
appellants shall, within a period of two weeks from today, file
a detailed computation with reference to each of the flat buyers
and the amount which is due and payable in pursuance of the
above directions. The amount shall be duly verified before
disbursal, on proper identification, to each of the flat buyers.
After completing the above exercise, in the event, that any
amount (inclusive of the accrued interest) remains surplus, it
shall be refunded to the appellants.
12. Upon the transfer of the amount, the SCDRC shall keep the
amount in a short term fixed deposit until the stage of
5
disbursement is reached.
The civil appeals are disposed of.
Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No
costs.
.............................J.
(DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)
.............................J.
( M.R. SHAH )
New Delhi,
Dated: NOVEMBER 19, 2018.
6
ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.13 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). 12603/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-04-
2018 in RA No. 114/2018 in First Appeal No.123 of 2017 passed by
the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD. & ANR. Etc. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
HIMANSHU ARORA & ANR. etc. Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 25850-25890/2018 (XVII)
(IN-PERSON MATTER
FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON ON IA 90479/2018)
Date : 19-11-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Counsel for the parties :
Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv.
Ms. Seema S., Adv.
Ms. Deepti Sarin, Adv.
Mr. Nakul Gandhi, Adv.
Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Adv.
Mr. Sourabh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Saundarajan, Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Adv.
Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Adv.
M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR
Mr. Amarjeet Singh, AOR
Mr. Narender Yadav, Adv.
7
Mr. Arjun Jain, Adv.
Ms. Aasita, Adv.
Mr. Waheb Hussaini, Adv.
Mr. Kabir Dixit, AOR
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
Respondent-in-person
Mr. Sameer Singh, Adv.
Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR
Mr. Mukand Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Puri, Adv.
Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, Adv.
Ms. Sweta Rani, Adv.
Mr. Anant Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Kathpalia, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.
(GEETA AHUJA) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER ( The Signed Order is placed on the file) 8