Summary
The Supreme Court upheld maintainability of delayed-possession complaints following intra-family transfers but reduced the compensation to Rs.5 lakh for each flat. Mandatory resubmission for fire-safety permission justified six months’ extension, and reduced sand availability warranted further allowance. The Commission’s deposit-adjustment, disputed-charge refund and litigation-cost directions remained. Payment was required within two months, failing which the complainant would receive 8% interest on the amounts due.
Issues
- Whether intra-family transferees could maintain the consumer complaints.
- Whether regulatory delay and sand shortage justified reducing delayed-possession compensation.
- What compensation and payment directions should replace the Commission’s interest award.
Held
- The earlier decision concerning purchases by strangers aware of existing delay did not bar every transferee’s complaint. These transfers occurred within a family living together, so the maintainability objection failed. (¶ 12)
- The mandatory fresh fire-safety approval process explained part of the delay and justified a six-month extension. Although sand mining was not entirely banned, reduced availability affected supply and warranted some benefit to the developer. (¶ 13)
- The Commission’s 8% interest-based compensation was replaced by Rs.5 lakh lump-sum compensation in each case. Its directions on adjustment of deposits, refund of the disputed interest charge and litigation costs were retained. (¶¶ 8, 14)
- All sums covered by the directions had to be paid within two months; in default the complainant would be entitled to 8% interest on the amounts in question. (¶ 14)
Result
Civil appeals disposed of without costs. Compensation substituted at Rs.5 lakh per case; Commission’s directions 1, 2 and 4 retained. Payment within two months, failing which 8% interest.