BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SYNDICATE BANK

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 17-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

; 
i 
A 
-1 
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORI1Y 
v. 
SYNDICATE BANK 
MAY 17, 2007 
B 
[P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN AND R. V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-ss. 2(/)(o), 14 and 23: 
c 
General Principles regulating grant of relief to a Consumer( applicant 
for allotment) who complains of delay in delivery or non-delivery under the 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stated 
" 
Interest-Grant of 18% commencing from the expiry of two years after D 
the deposit of 'last instalment '-For delay in delivery of possession of houses/ 
i 
flats by Development Authority-Held: There was no specified date to deliver 
houses by the Authority-Development Authority already delivered the house 
during the pendency of the complaint at the agreed price-Allottee accepted 
the same and also had the benefits of appreciation of price of the house- E 
Thus, order of the Commission granting interest not sustainable. 
Compensation-Entitlement of-For delay in delivery tJj possession of 
houses/flats by Development Authority-Held: No, since there was no specific 
date for delivery of possession of the houses-Houses were constructed under 
a self-financing scheme on 'No-Profit No-Loss basis" by using instalments/ F 
~ 
amounts paid by allottees-Authority received instalments without interest 
by way of adjustment in 1989-Delay in delivery was on account of the 
contractor-However, houses were delivered in 1997 at a price agreed in 
1986-Allottee had the benefit of appreciation of price of house-Thus, no 
deficiency in service on the part of the Authority. 
G 
Appellant-Bangalore Development Authority introduced a "Self 
-'"" 
Financing Housing Scheme" for construction of HIG, MIG and LIG flats/ 
houses. Respondent-Syndicate Bank applied for allotment of 15 'HIG' Houses, 
47 
H 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 7 S.C.R. 
A 110 'MIG' units and 125 'LIG' units. Initially the tentative price ofHIG house 
was fixed and thereafter, the price was revised. BOA called upon the 
respondent to pay the revised amount in instalments and also informed the 
respondent that the units would be ready for occupation in December, 1986. 
However, the respondent did not pay the instalments. Thereafter, BOA informed 
B the respondent that 15 HIG Houses had been allotted to respondent on 
16.11987. Respondent surrendered allotment of 125 LIG units. By letter dated 
15.5.1989, BDA recovered due towards the cost of 15 HIG Houses by 
adjustment and appropriation from the amount which had became refundable 
j--· 
to the respondent on account of surrender of allotment in regard to LIG units. 
c BOA delivered 4 HIG houses in December, 1989 and May, 1990. The 
completion of construction and delivery of remaining 11 HIG houses was 
delayed. Respondent sought interest on the price paid on account of delay in 
delivery of the HIG houses. However, appellant informed the respondent that 
the delay was on 11ccount of the contractor raising a dispute and stopping the 
" 
D work but assured that possession would be delivered immediately after 
F
completion. Respondent issued notice demanding performance of contract. 
Respondent then filed a complaint under section 21 of Consumer Protection, 
Act, 1986 claiming completion and due delivery of the remaining 11 HIG 
houses; payment of interest; payment as reimbursement of rent paid by 
E 
respondent for 11 houses; and compensation for mental agony and harassment. 
During the pendency BOA delivered remaining HIG house in January/March 
1997. Commission allowed the complaint holding that BOA had promised to 
deliver the houses to the respondent by December 1986; that in spite of 
respondent having made full payment and making repeated demands, 11 houses 
were not delivered till the complaint was filed in 1995, thus there was 
~
F deficiency of service on the part of BOA. It directed the appellant to pay interest 
~ 
at 18% per annum on approximate price of HIG houses commencing from 
the expiry of two years after the deposit last instalment up to date of handing 
of over the possession. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is some vagueness in the order of the Commission, 
in regard to the period of which interest is awarded. The amount with regard 
).._ 
to the approximate price ofHIG houses was not paid in instalments as assumed · 
H by the Commission. BOA recovered the due towards the cost 15 HIG Houses 
·-
,.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1•. SYNDICATE BANK 
49 
i 
by adjustment and appr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.