Summary
The Supreme Court upheld refund with interest to flat purchasers after substantial delay in obtaining occupancy certification and offering possession. Purchasers could not be forced to accept a belated flat or bound by the builder’s unfair standard-form restrictions on termination and refund. The award of 10.7% simple interest was sustained, including its exclusion of the period when cancellation of allotment was stayed at the purchaser’s request.
Issues
- Whether delayed possession could be imposed instead of refund.
- Whether one-sided termination and interest clauses bound the purchaser.
- Whether the compensation rate and excluded period were justified.
Held
- Inordinate delay constituted deficiency in service. The purchaser was justified in seeking termination through the consumer complaint and refund, rather than being compelled to accept possession whenever eventually offered. (¶¶ 6.1–6.2, 9)
- The agreement imposed substantially unequal consequences for purchaser and builder default. Where the purchaser had no meaningful choice but to sign the builder’s standard form, the ex facie unfair terms were not binding; their incorporation constituted an unfair trade practice under the 1986 Act. (¶ 6.3–7)
- The Commission’s 10.7% simple-interest award was equitable in the circumstances and reflected the Haryana rule relied upon. Interest ran from each instalment until 5 February 2017 and resumed from the Commission’s final order until refund, excluding the intervening allotment-cancellation stay period. (¶ 8–8.1)
- The builder’s eventual offer did not defeat refund where the purchaser had serviced a housing loan during the delay and obtained alternative accommodation. (¶ 9–10)
Result
Builder’s appeals dismissed and Commission’s refund-with-interest orders affirmed. Three months granted to refund the amount; pending applications disposed of.