Summary
A homebuyer sought refund after substantial delay beyond the contractual possession date, while the developer relied on a restrictive delay-compensation clause. The Court upheld refund of Rs.2,06,41,379, holding the one-sided clauses non-binding and consumer remedies independent of RERA remedies. It retained 9% annual interest but directed calculation from each deposit date rather than the last deposit. The developer’s appeal failed and the buyer’s appeal succeeded only to that extent.
Issues
- Whether the buyer could reject belated possession and obtain refund despite the contractual delay-compensation restriction.
- Whether RERA displaced or limited the Consumer Commission’s refund jurisdiction.
- What rate and commencement date should govern interest on the refund.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r) and 14, Consumer Protection Act, 1986Unfair contractual restrictions did not prevent refund and compensation for deficient delayed delivery. (¶¶ 8-10, 15-19)
- Sections 18, 79 and 88, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016The statutory framework preserved consumer remedies; the two enactments were read harmoniously without giving RERA exclusive primacy. (¶ 12-17)
- Section 23 proviso, Consumer Protection Act, 1986The developer’s Rs.50,000 appellate deposit was directed to the buyer with adjustment against the amount payable. (¶ 23)
Held
- The developer admitted the contractual trigger date; the commitment period and grace period expired before the occupation certificate and possession offer. Following Pioneer and related authorities, the one-sided restriction on delay compensation did not bind the buyer to accept belated possession instead of refund. (¶ 7-10)
- Consumer Protection Act and RERA remedies were concurrent, independent and capable of harmonious operation. Availability of RERA relief did not bar the Consumer Commission’s jurisdiction or require primacy over the consumer remedy. (¶ 12-14.3)
- Section 14 empowered refund and compensation for proven deficiency. A consumer could seek refund, possession with compensation, or alternative reliefs, subject to the merits; this buyer sought refund alone and that choice was properly honoured. (¶ 15-19)
- Interest serving restitution and compensation had to run from the respective dates of deposit. Commencement only from the last deposit failed to restore the buyer adequately. The 9% annual rate was fair; enhancement to 24% was refused. (¶ 20-22.2)
Result
Developer’s appeal dismissed; buyer’s appeal partly allowed to make 9% annual interest on the Rs.2,06,41,379 refund run from each deposit date until payment. The Rs.50,000 appellate deposit was to be paid to the buyer and credited against the developer’s final liability. Parties to bear their own costs.