Summary
A builder whose right to file a written statement was forfeited could participate and challenge the buyers’ case within legal limits, but could not introduce a factual defence through written submissions. The Court also corrected delay compensation to run from the contractual possession date, September 2014, rather than a date linked to instalment payments, while retaining the 6% annual interest rate.
Issues
- What participation is permitted after forfeiture of the right to file a written statement before a consumer forum.
- Whether written submissions could introduce the builder’s otherwise barred factual defence.
- Whether the possession date for delay compensation should follow the construction agreement or the payment of a later instalment.
- Whether the compensation rate or refusal of parking and legal-fee refunds required interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 38(9), Consumer Protection Act, 2019The CPC does not apply wholesale to consumer proceedings. In the absence of a specific forfeiture rule, general civil-procedure principles guided the limits of participation. (¶¶ 14, 15, 18, 19)
- Order VI Rules 1, 2 and 7, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Material facts constituting a defence must be pleaded; written submissions or evidence cannot supply the factual case barred by forfeiture of the written statement. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 20)
Held
- Forfeiture of a written statement does not exclude the opposite party from further proceedings or from cross-examining the complainant’s witnesses. It does prevent introducing its own unpleaded factual case and supporting evidence indirectly through written submissions. Legal arguments and permissible challenges to the complainant’s evidence remain open. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Forfeiture does not entitle a complainant automatically to a favourable order; the adjudicating forum must still assess whether the complaint is proved. Although the builder’s attempt to introduce factual defences was improper, NCDRC had not actually relied on those defences in deciding this complaint. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- The contractual possession deadline, including its six-month grace period, governs delay compensation on these facts. A construction-linked payment schedule did not justify replacing that deadline with a date tied to the eleventh instalment, and the absence of a date-wise payment schedule was no exceptional circumstance. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- Compensation by 6% annual interest on the buyers’ deposits was retained, payable from September 2014 until the offer of possession to each respective buyer. NCDRC must verify those individual offer dates in execution. (¶¶ 22, 25, 26)
- There was no ground to interfere with refusal of the parking-charge refund or legal-fee refund. The directions for construction of the promised jogging track and convenience store already formed part of NCDRC’s order. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Delay-compensation commencement modified to September 2014; 6% per annum retained until each buyer’s offer of possession, to be verified in execution. Other challenged findings left undisturbed. Pending applications disposed of.