The Supreme Court of India has brought finality to a decade-long dispute between Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. and homebuyers directing that possession of the flat be handed over within two weeks after the builder replaced defective marble flooring pursuant to earlier directions of the Court. The Court partly upholds the monetary relief granted by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) while setting aside its adverse findings on delay attributed to the developer.
The respondents had booked the flat and paid the consideration more than ten years ago. The committed date of possession was 07.09.2015. The NCDRC, by its order dated 20.04.2023 in Consumer Case No. 1076 of 2017, awarded simple interest at 6% for the delay from the promised possession date until a valid partial Occupancy Certificate or offer of possession, whichever was later.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the delay was caused by genuine force majeure circumstances, including a Stop Work Order, floods, and refusal of the electricity company to lay cables. They contended that the NCDRC erred in rejecting the force majeure explanation and that its reasoning if allowed to stand could operate as an adverse precedent. They also pointed out that the defective marble flooring had already been replaced in compliance with earlier orders of the Supreme Court, and possession had been offered to the respondents.
The respondents, on the other hand, highlighted that despite having made full payment over a decade ago, they had not received their home. They stressed the prolonged mental agony, the earlier cancellation and later restoration of their allotment by NCDRC, and the years of hardship endured. They argued that the appellants should not only be held liable for delay but should also compensate them over and above the 6% interest.
After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to take possession of the flat within two weeks in the presence of representatives of the appellants. It also set aside the NCDRC’s finding that the delay could not be treated as force majeure, clarifying that such reasoning should not operate as a precedent. While upholding the award of 6% simple interest for the period of delay, the Court restricted the interest period to 07.09.2015 to 05.07.2016.
In view of the prolonged deprivation of possession, the Court ordered the appellants to pay an additional lump-sum compensation of ₹10,00,000 to the respondents within two weeks. However, further contractual compensation was denied since the respondents had not preferred an appeal. The Supreme Court also set aside the NCDRC’s broader observations fastening liability for the entire delay on the appellants.
Both parties were directed to file compliance affidavits within three weeks. The Court further ordered that any amount deposited by the appellants before the NCDRC be released to them along with accrued interest.
Appearances:
Appellants/Developers : Mr. C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. S. Sukumaran, Advocate, Mr. Bikram Sarkar, Advocate, Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR, Mr. Bhupesh Pathak, Advocate, and Mrs. Ruche Anand, Advocate.
Respondents/Homebuyers : Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR, Mr. Gautam Jha, AOR, Ms. Prachi Dubey, Advocate, and Ms. Mehak Joshi, Advocate
