VENKATARAMAN KRISHNAMURTHY AND ANOTHER VERSUS LODHA CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.

CITATION	2024 INSC 132
CASE NUMBER	Civil appeal no. 971 of 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT	29th January, 2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Venkataraman Krishnamurthy and another
RESPONDENT	lodha crown buildmart pvt. Ltd
BENCH	Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar

INTRODUCTION- 

This appeal deals with the question of whether the court can interfere with contracts on which the parties were already agreed upon. In this case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as NCDRC) decided the consumer complaint and gave its decision as per their choice and discretion and overlooked the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell of an apartment. 

FACTS OF THE CASE;

1. The appellant/complainant had entered into an agreement to sell of an apartment with respondent company on 29.11.2013.

2. The sale consideration amount was fixed to the tune of Rs ₹7,55,50,956/- . The appellant has to pay Rs 5,83,53,615/- on initiation of fit outs and rest of the amount was to be paid into 4 installments. The appellant paid Rs 2,25,31,148 in total.

3.  As per the agreement, the possession of the apartment was to be delivered on  30.06.2016 or with a grace period of one year by 30.06.2017. However, the respondent has not delivered the possession of the apartment on the prescribed period. 

4.  The appellant filed the consumer complaint before NCDRC for refund of the amount paid by the appellant. However, NCDRC directed the respondent to give possession of the apartment within 3 months from the impugned order dated 09.11.2022 after completion. The NCDRC also directs that both the parties will inspect the apartment with their representatives before the delivery of possession. The NCDRC directed that if the appellant wants refund, then the appellant can send a notice to the respondent and the respondent will refund the amount after deducting earnest money and pay interest to the tune of Rs 6 % to the appellant. Aggrieved by the complainant of this order, the appellant filed this appeal before the Hon’able Supreme Court of India. 

QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDER;

Whether the court can interfere with the agreement signed between the parties and can direct new terms and conditions to the parties?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT-   

The appellant contended that the respondents are unable to provide the possession of the apartment as per the term and conditions of the agreement. The respondents also passed the grace period and harassed the appellants. The respondents caused undue delay to provide the possession of apartment.  On delay of the delivery of possession, the appellants has right to terminate the agreement. Even as per agreement, the respondent will pay refund in 12 installments.  

The appellant also contended that the respondents harassed the appellant as the respondent agreed to show the apartment before the date of delivery of possession as per the agreement, but the respondent never acted on that, despite of various requests of the appellant.

The appellant also contended that the interest rate as per agreement is 12% p.a on refund amount but the NCDRC court discretionary ordered to pay the interest of 6% p.a on refund money after deductions. 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT-

The respondent contended that the appellant was duly informed vide letter dated 29.11.2017 that the apartment is ready, however, the appellant choose not to take the possession but terminated the agreement. The respondent also contended that the decision of NCDRC is correct. 

FINDINGS OF COURT- 

1. That the Apex Court held that there was unreasonable delay in delivery of possession. The respondent has not justified the cause of delay. Hence as per the agreement, the appellant can terminate the agreement as the respondent had not provided the delivery of possession of apartment as per the terms mutually agreed by the parties.

2. That the Apex Court held that the court cannot make new agreements for the parties. The courts are duty bound to interpret the agreement and make it binding upon the parties as both the parties mutually agreed on that agreement. The Apex Court referred General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandumull Jain and another ,   Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd.2,  Shree Ambica Medical Stores vs. Surat People‘s and  GMR Warora Energy Ltd. vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission . In all these case it is retrieved here that the duty of court is to interpret the agreement, the court cannot substitute its own opinion and the court cannot rewrite agreement for the parties.   

DECISION OF THE COURT- 

The Apex Court sets aside the impugned order dated 09.11.2022  of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and held that the court has overstepped its power and jurisdiction. 

The Apex Court ordered to refund the paid amount with interest at rate of 12 % p.a as per the agreement within 12 installments. 

ANALYSIS-

The findings of the Apex Court are appropriate. The Apex Court correctly said that the court cannot make new agreements for the parties. The terms and conditions of the agreement are mutual thing and the courts cannot impose new terms on other parties vide their decision. The appellant prayed for refund of the amount that he paid to the respondent but the NCDRC court imposed new terms on the appellant through their order.

CONCLUSION- 

The important point of the case is that courts have to give their verdict as per the prayer sought by the party. In this case, the appellant prayed for refund of their money and compensation amount for harassment, but the court directed the respondent to deliver the possession although the appellant. The Apex Court rightfully sets aside the impugned order as the court cannot enforce their discretionary terms on any party. The courts are bound to interpret the agreement and enforce that agreement on the parties for which they mutually agreed upon. 

REFERENCE- 

1. website of Indian kannon-

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18207749/

This article is written by Amanpreet Kaur, Advocate, graduated from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Intern at LegalVidiya.

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.