Consumer courts empowered to direct refund, compensate buyer for not delivering flat: SC

The Supreme Court (SC) has held that consumer courts can grant relief to flat purchasers who are aggrieved with delay in handing over of the flat as per the apartment buyers agreement.
A bench, headed by justice UU Lalit and comprising justice S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha, said: "We have referred to the legal regime under the Consumer Protection Act, only to show that the (National Consumer Disputes Redressal) Commission has the power and jurisdiction to direct return of money under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, if a consumer so chooses. The freedom to choose the necessary relief is of the consumer and it is the duty of the courts to honour it."
Justice Narasimha, who authored the judgement on behalf of the bench, said that a consumer invoking the jurisdiction of the Commission can seek such reliefs as he/she considers appropriate.
"A consumer can pray for a refund of the money with interest and compensation. The consumer could also ask for possession of the apartment with compensation. The consumer can also make a prayer for both in the alternative," he said.
The bench noted that the power to direct refund of the amount and to compensate a consumer for the deficiency in not delivering the apartment as per the terms of agreement is within the jurisdiction of the consumer courts.
"If a consumer prays for refund of the amount, without an alternative prayer, the Commission will recognise such a right and grant it, of course subject to the merits of the case. If a consumer seeks alternative reliefs, the Commission will consider the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case and will pass appropriate orders as justice demands," said the bench.
The top court made these observations while hear an appeal by Experion Developers Private Limited, which was directed by the Commission to refund an amount of Rs 2,06,41,379 with interest at 9%per annum to the consumer for its failure to deliver possession of the apartment within the time stipulated as per the apartment buyers agreement.
Dismissing the appeal filed by the developer, the bench noted that the consumer, in the present case, prayed for the solitary relief for return of the amount paid towards purchase of the apartment without a prayer for alternate relief.
"We are of the opinion that the Commission has correctly exercised its power and jurisdiction in passing the above directions for refund of the amount with interest," said justice Narasimha.
The appeal filed by the consumer said that the payment of interest must be from the date of payment of each instalment and the rate of interest must be 24%per annum. "We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit. We find that this does not amount to restitution," noted the bench.
The bench said the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. "Therefore, the appeal filed by the purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interests shall be payable from the dates of such depositsa. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just," it noted.



To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

Changes in Our Business Model
25th Sept 2020
Greetings from Moneylife Advisory Services
Between financial years 2019-21, SEBI has come up with extensive changes to investor advisor regulations. On Sep 23, 2020, SEBI had issued new additional guidelines. This comes just two months after extensive changes announced in July 2020. Earlier, in December 2019 there was an ad hoc circular
As a result of these changes, IAs, cannot accept fees through credit cards, will have to sign a 26-clause investor agreement, have to maintain physical record written & signed by client, telephone recording, emails, SMS messages and any other legally verifiable record for five years. IAs were already asked to record the suitability and rationale for every piece of advice given, sign them and store them for five years.
While these extensive and frequent changes, designed to strengthen the conduct of IAs are well-meaning, these have sharply increased compliance efforts and cost. We, being online advisors, find many of changes harder to implement, compared to advisors working in the physical space. We will have to have an army of advisors, administrative and tech staff to be compliant. If we do this, we will have to divert money to these areas and the cost of our service will double. We want to remain the least-cost service in the market to benefit more and more people. In the circumstances, we are forced to change our business model from “advisory” to “research”. This will mean the following:
What remains the same:
  • Recommendations on insurance, investment and Lion stocks, will continue as a part of the MAS premium subscription. Our strength has always been research and this will remain available to you through our recommendations.
  • The magazine and all textual content will remain as part of the service
  • We will have to suspend the restructuring tool.
What changes:
  • The interactions in Ask / Handholding will offer investment advice but not specific to your situation. It will offer information on investment products and also clarify your doubts about various financial products. It will be a forum for information, not for advice. This will be implemented with immediate effect and our guidelines in Ask, reflect this now.
Over the next few weeks our site and our communication to you will reflect these and other additional changes.
We feel this will not affect you much in terms of what really matters in investing: knowing what to buy and when to buy. This is our edge and it will still be available to you.
Debashis Basu