Summary
In appeals concerning delayed apartments in The Corridors project, the Court computed the contractual deadline from fire approval, rejected oppressive buyer-agreement terms, and confirmed that RERA did not oust consumer remedies. Relief depended on the buyers’ position: two with completed, certified apartments had to accept possession with delay compensation, while buyers without occupancy certificates obtained refunds with interest. Specific refund directions applied to an unfulfilled undertaking and an urgent hardship case.
Issues
- From what date the contractual delivery period ran.
- Whether one-sided agreement terms bound buyers under the 1986 consumer law.
- Whether RERA displaced consumer-forum jurisdiction.
- Which buyers should accept possession and which were entitled to refund, and on what terms.
Provisions considered
- Section 15, Haryana Fire Service Act, 2009Fire approval was a mandatory construction precondition; the contractual period was computed from its grant, read with the sanctioned plans and environmental clearance. (¶ 18.2–18.11)
- Section 3 and Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986Housing construction is a service; consumer remedies supplement other legal remedies. (¶¶ 19.3, 20.1–20.3)
- Sections 18, 79 and 88, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016Refund and other statutory remedies coexist with consumer remedies; the civil-court bar does not oust consumer fora. (¶ 20.5–20.11)
Held
- On this agreement and its approval conditions, the 42-month commitment plus six-month grace period ran from fire approval on 27 November 2014, giving a possession deadline of 27 November 2018. The later date did not excuse the developer’s delay in obtaining approval. (¶ 18.1–18.11)
- The agreement’s disproportionately onerous buyer obligations and restricted buyer remedies were unfair and one-sided. Consumer fora under the 1986 Act could refuse enforcement of such terms as an incident of their powers against unfair trade practices; the developer could not compel buyers to be bound by them. (¶ 19.1–19.7)
- RERA did not exclude consumer complaints: the statutory schemes preserve additional remedies and give the allottee a choice. This was not permission to recover the same relief twice through simultaneous inconsistent remedies; the judgment also explained election principles. (¶ 20.2–20.11)
- Chart A buyers at serial numbers 1 and 2 had to accept completed apartments for which occupancy certificates had issued and possession was offered on 28 June 2019, with delay compensation from 27 November 2018 until that offer. They were not granted the Chart B refund. (¶ 21.2, Chart A(i))
- Chart A serial number 3 received refund within four weeks with 9% annual interest from 16 September 2019, the date of the developer’s unfulfilled refund undertaking before NCLT; non-compliance attracted 12% default interest. (¶ 21.2, Chart A(ii))
- Chart B buyers, whose allotted towers still lacked occupancy certificates, could not be compelled to wait indefinitely or accept different Phase I apartments. Their deposits were refundable without earnest-money or other specified deductions, with 9% simple annual interest from 27 November 2018 until payment, within three months; further delay attracted 12% simple default interest. (¶ 21.2, Chart B(i)–(v))
- The buyer in Civil Appeal No.9139 of 2019 was granted an accelerated four-week refund with 9% simple annual interest, with 12% simple default interest for failure, in view of the specific hardship described. Appeals and applications were disposed of without costs. (¶ 21.2, Chart B(vi))
Result
Appeals disposed of with differentiated possession, delay-compensation and refund directions; no order as to costs.