Spread the love
Cci projects (p) ltd. V. Vrajendra jagjivandas Thakkar

CITATION
2018 SCC Online SC 2564: (2019) 11 SCC 665: (2018) 4 CPR 642 (SC): (2019) 134 ALR 301: (2019) 197 AIC 268 (SC): (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 800: MANU/ SC/1336/2018

DATE OF JUDGMENT
27 November, 2018

COURT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

APPELLANT
CCI PROJECTS (P) LTD.

RESPONDENT
V. VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR

BENCH
J. UDAY UMESH LALITJ. R. SUBHASH REDDY

Facts

The two residential apartments were reserved by Vrajendra J. Thakkar and Hemali Vrajendra Thakkar in their individual names with the appellant for a project called the “White Spring Building,” which the appellant intended to build at Borivali (East), Mumbai’s Magathane hamlet on Dattapada Road, for a consideration of Rs. 90,38,850 all in. Rajendra has been assigned Flat No. 6A, whereas Hemali has been assigned Flat No. 6B. The parties signed an agreement on October 30, 2012, and it stated that the units will be in possession by August 2014. Subsequently, Kumudben Jagjivandas Thakkar received the allocation in favour of both Vrajendra and Hemali. The current Respondent was also given the exact same flat by Kumudben. In a complaint submitted with the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission on June 2, 2016, the consumer in question stated that even though the Appellant had deposited Rs. 85,86,911/- for each of the units, no possession had been given. In opposition to the complaint, the appellant claimed that although the construction had started and the necessary permissions had been obtained, the builder was required by the New Development Control rules announced in 2012 to submit a new application in this regard, and as a result, there had been a restriction on sand mining activity for more than 24 months, which is necessary to produce the basic raw material for building construction. The appellant further argued before the commission that the respondent owed them Rs. 1,04,207 for each property. The Complainants were instructed by the Commission to turn up possession and deposit the money with the commission. The commission dismissed the appellant’s argument about the issued NOC and the non-availability of the sand, noting that no supporting documentation had been submitted to the system. The commission noted that the complainants had not contested the amounts of Rs. 1,04,207 that the appellant had sought to recover. Based on this, the complaint was resolved with a directive to return the money that the complainant had deposited with the commission, along with interest. The opposing party was also required to compensate the complainant until the date of the resolution by paying simple interest at the rate of 8% annually on the amount that had been paid by that date. which the possession was turned up, therefore the plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for Rs. 25,000 as litigation costs. Feeling betrayed by the National Commission’s ruling, the appellant has filed an appeal with this Honourable Supreme Court of India under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arguing that the original allottees had transferred their interest and that the time lost due to the requirement for re-submitting plans should be extended.

Issue: Whether beneficiary on transfer of the allotment of flat, is a consumer?

Appellant’s contention

The court ruled that the complaints were unmanageable due to the transfer of interest by the original allottees. The appellant was entitled to extend the time lost between 21.12.2012 and 07.05.2013 due to mandatory re-submission of plans. The National Green Tribunal banned sand mining activities in India on 05.08.2013, which was relaxed in 2015 with a new policy by the Union of India. The availability of sand during this period decreased by 20%. The appellant was not at fault, as possession was offered on 16.11.2016, a short period of over two years between August, 2014 and 16.11.2016. The period was explained, and the Commission was not justified in imposing liability on the appellant.

Respondent contention

He argued that the appellant had no right to a time extension. He also argued that rather than outlawing actual sand mining, the National Green Tribunal’s judgement only outlawed illicit sand mining. Thus, the sand was offered for sale.

Analysis

The Haryana Development Authority case ruled that subsequent allottees’ entitlement to claim damages or compensation for delayed possession delivery was unsustainable. The court found that the subsequent allottees were aware of delays in delivering plots due to time taken in forming the layout or encroachment but still purchased the interest of the original allottees. In this case, the transfers were effected within a family where the members lived together. The court’s decision cannot be extended to every case where a transfer occurs, as the complaint by the subsequent transferee would not be maintainable.

The appellant argued that mandatory requirements to resubmit plans and obtain fresh NOC for fire safety permission allowed for a six-month extension from August 2014 to November 2016. The Commission awarded 8% interest on the deposited sum, which was Rs.85.86 lakhs. The interest element for the one-year and eight-month period would be around Rs.11.4 lakhs.

Judgement

The parties’ transfers were inside the family, according to the Supreme Court’s ruling. It also explained that the appellant was entitled to a six-month delay because of the required obligation to resubmit the plan and get a new NOC regarding the fire safety clearance, and it was noted that there was not a total prohibition on sand mining.

The Supreme Court upheld the National Commission’s decision regarding directions Nos. 1, 2, and 4, taking the case as a whole. Regarding direction No. 3, the Appellant would have to give the Respondent a lump sum payment of Rs. 5 lakhs for each case. In the event that any of the amounts covered by the directives are not paid within the allotted two months, the Respondent Complainant will be entitled to 8% interest on the outstanding amounts.

REFERENCE: SCC ONLINE

https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/sites/default/files/file-uploads/latestnews/Landmark_Judgements.pdf

This Article is written by Ananya Purwar student of Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *