Kolkata West International City (P) Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2019 TaxPub(CL) 0463 (SC) Kolkata West International City (P) Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 --Appeal--Appeal against refund of moneyNon-handing over possession of a Row House --Whether buyer entitled to seek a refund or estopped from doing so, having claimed compensation as primary relief in consumer complaint--Though nearly seven years had elapsed from date of agreement in respect of handing over of possession of Row House to buyer, therefore, even though primary relief which was sought in consumer complaint was for delivery of possession, the buyer was entitled to seek refund of moneys together with interest and compensation. --Buyer filed a consumer complaint against developer for non-handing over possession of a Row House. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) allowed the complaint by directing the developer to refund the moneys paid by the buyer together with interest at 12% per annum and compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had modified this order by reducing the compensation from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The developer challenged the order on the ground that the primary relief which was sought in the consumer complaint was for delivery of possession. Therefore, the buyer was not entitled to seek the refund. *Held:* In terms of the agreement, date for handing over possession was 31-12-2008, with a grace period of six months, i.e., 30-6-2009, but completion certificate was received on 29-3-2016, which was intimated to the buyer on 11-4-2016. Nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement in respect of handing over of possession of the Row House. It would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund. Therefore, the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified, but the order was modified by directing that the developer should pay interest at the rate of 9% to the buyer instead of 12%. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2019 TaxPub(CL) 0463 (SC)

Kolkata West International City (P) Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

--Appeal--Appeal against refund of moneyNon-handing over possession of a Row House --Whether buyer entitled to seek a refund or estopped from doing so, having claimed compensation as primary relief in consumer complaint--Though nearly seven years had elapsed from date of agreement in respect of handing over of possession of Row House to buyer, therefore, even though primary relief which was sought in consumer complaint was for delivery of possession, the buyer was entitled to seek refund of moneys together with interest and compensation. --Buyer filed a consumer complaint against developer for non-handing over possession of a Row House. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) allowed the complaint by directing the developer to refund the moneys paid by the buyer together with interest at 12% per annum and compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had modified this order by reducing the compensation from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The developer challenged the order on the ground that the primary relief which was sought in the consumer complaint was for delivery of possession. Therefore, the buyer was not entitled to seek the refund. Held: In terms of the agreement, date for handing over possession was 31-12-2008, with a grace period of six months, i.e., 30-6-2009, but completion certificate was received on 29-3-2016, which was intimated to the buyer on 11-4-2016. Nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement in respect of handing over of possession of the Row House. It would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund. Therefore, the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified, but the order was modified by directing that the developer should pay interest at the rate of 9% to the buyer instead of 12%.