LALATENDU NAYAK & ANR. Vs. SUPERTECH LTD. - (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) (30 Sep 2020)

If there is inordinate delay in handing over the possession, the complainant cannot be compelled to take the possession

MANU/CF/0469/2020

Consumer

Present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party Supertech Ltd. claiming deficiency in service against the opposite party for not handing over the possession in time of the residential unit booked by the complainant with the opposite party and thereby requesting the refund of the deposited amount.

The compensation demanded by the complainant is by way of interest and also for the rental expenditure as well as compensation for mental agony. The complainant has calculated these compensations to be more than Rs. One crore and therefore prima facie, this Commission admitted the complaint and issued notice. Present Commission in the case of Gaurav Aneja & Anr. Vs. Supertech Limited, II has held that for pecuniary jurisdiction, interest at the rate 18% per annum can be considered. Thus, if present Commission calculate the interest at the rate 18% per annum from the date of respective deposits of different amounts, the interest comes to approximately Rs.45,60,800 and if this amount is added to the amount paid of Rs.54,61,004, the figure crosses Rs. one crore. Therefore, this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction.

From the reply to the legal notice, it is clear that the construction of the flats was continuing in June 2017 and no promise was given in this reply to the complainant to hand over the possession in the near future. The possession was due as per the agreement by October 2013. However, the construction was continuing till 2017 and the possession was not offered by that time in spite of the legal notice issued by the complainant and in spite of issuance of the no dues certificate by the opposite party. Though the opposite party had issued no dues certificate to the complainant, but despite this, the possession was never offered to the complainant till filing of the complaint. If the occupation certificate was really received by the end of 2015, it is not clear as to why the possession could not be delivered even after issuing the no dues certificate to the complainant. Clearly, there has been grave deficiency on the part of the opposite party and there has been inordinate delay in completion of the project and handing over of the flat.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Govindan Raghavan has held that, if there is inordinate delay in handing over the possession, the complainant cannot be compelled to take the possession, even if the unit is complete and occupation certificate has been obtained. The complainant is entitled to seek refund of the deposited amount in the circumstances of the case.

Even though the compensation has been sought under many heads, the only way to compensate the complainant would be to grant interest on the amount of refund. The opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.54,61,004 along with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of respective deposits till actual payment. Complaint allowed.

Tags : DEFICIENCY SERVICE COMPENSATION