National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Division Bench of Dr S.M. Kantikar (Presiding Member) and Dinesh Singh (Member) held that, a homebuyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession.
The instant appeal was preferred by the appellant under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein OP was directed to handover the possession of the subject flat to the respondent — complainant after receiving the balance consideration amount from respondent — complainant.
Advocates for the appellant — Siddhesh Bhole, Royden Fernandes and Deepam Rangwani.
Advocates for the respondent — Sukruta A. Chimalker and S.B. Prabhavalkar.
State Commission held that there was a deficiency on the part of the OP is not handing over possession and not obtaining the necessary certificates for the subject flat.
Opposite Party was directed to handover possession of the flat within three months after receiving the remaining consideration of Rs. 5.50 lakh as well as to provide Occupancy Certificate and Building Completion Certificate to the Complainant.
Aggrieved with the State Commission’s order, OP filed an appeal before the Commission.
Bench noted that the complainant had paid Rs 11 lakhs by cheque to the OP towards consideration for the subject agreement. OP contended that the subject agreement was cancelled by the complainant.
On perusal of the cancellation letter, it was evident that for more than 2 years, there was no construction work/development at the site of the project. Complainant was also paying interest on the amount paid to the Opposite Party builder firm, therefore, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to return the entire amount paid.
With regard to the delivery of possession, OP contended that the agreement did not mention the date of delivery of possession of the said flat to the Complainant. However, the buyer cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period.
It was OP’s duty itself to mention the date of delivery of possession in the agreement and failure to do so necessarily requires to be read against the OP. In all contingencies, the complainant could not have been made to wait indefinitely for possession.
OP argued that State Commission grossly erred in disregarding the applicability of the relevant provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
In the above regard, the Court noted that the Act 1986 is for better protection of the interests of consumers, to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes.
Section 3 specifically provides that 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.
In the year 2003, the complainant requested for refund of the entire amount paid by her but OP did not refund the amount paid with or without interest.
Commission opined that the State Commission’s order was reasoned, hence the instant appeal being misconceived and bereft of merit was dismissed.[Adrian Pereira v. Anita Ronald Lewis, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 466, decided on 16-10-2020]
