CCI PROJECTS (P) LTD. versus VRAJENDRA JOGJIVANDAS THAKKAR

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 27-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
213
CCI PROJECTS (P) LTD.
v.
VRAJENDRA JOGJIVANDAS THAKKAR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6784-6785 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 27, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.23 – Two consumers
booked one residential flat each in a building project, which
appellant was to construct – Separate agreements in the year 2012
were entered into, by both the consumers with appellant – Possession
of flats was to be delivered by August 2014 – Though sum of
Rs.85,86,911/- had been deposited in respect of each flat, no
possession was delivered by the appellant by August 2014 – The
two consumers filed separate complaints against the appellant –
During the pendency of the matters, the possession of flats was
offered by the appellant vide letter dated 16.11.2016 and which
was subsequently taken by the complainants – Commission, inter-
alia, directed appellant to pay compensation in the form of simple
interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount paid by the consumers/
complainants, w.e.f. 01.09.2014 till the date on which the possession
was actually delivered to complainant – Appellant contended that
the time lost between 21.12.2012 till 07.05.2013 was on account of
mandatory requirement for re-submission of plans, therefore, the
appellant was entitled to have that period extended – On appeal,
held: The period between 21.12.2012 to 07.05.2013 was completely
explained by the appellant, as it was mandatorily required to re-
submit the plans and get fresh NOC in respect of fire safety
permission – Thus, out of the period between August, 2014 till
16.11.2016, the appellant was entitled to have a period of 6 months
of extension as per the agreements – Deposited sum in either case
was Rs.85,86,911/-   – Interest @ 8% p.a. awarded on the deposited
amount by the Commission for the remaining period of one year
and 8 months was in region of Rs. 11.4 lakhs – Considering the
entirety of the matter, instead thereof, lumpsum compensation of
Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to the complainants in respect of each case.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 213
213
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
214                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant is justified in saying that as a result
of mandatory requirements to re-submit the plans and get the
fresh NOC in respect of fire safety permission, the period between
21.12.2012 to 07.05.2013 stood completely explained.  Thus, out
of the period between August, 2014 till 16.11.2016, the appellant
would be entitled to have a period of 6 months of extension.  That
still leaves us with a period of a year and 8 months.  The
Commission has awarded 8% interest on the deposited sum.  The
deposited sum in either case being Rs.85.86 lakhs, going by the
direction issued by the Commission, the interest element in
respect of the period of one year and 8 months would be in the
region of Rs.11.4 lakhs.   Further, considering the second part of
the submission.  It is true that there was no complete ban on
sand mining.  But as a result of reduced availability of sand in the
market, the demand and supply ratio must have been upset. The
appellant would therefore be entitled to some benefit on that
count. [Para 13][220-E-G]
2. Considering the entirety of the matter, a lumpsum
compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to the respondent in
respect of each case. Therefore, the directions issued by the
Commission are modified. [Para 14][220-H; 221-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6784-
6785 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2018 and 23.01.2018
of the  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
in Review Application No. 90 of 2018 and Consumer Complaint No. 975
of 2016 respectively.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6786-6787 of 2018.
Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv.,  Debmalya Banerjee, A. S. Aman,
Manish Sharma, Arvind Kapoor, Ms. Iqra Khalid, Mrs. Manik
Karanjawala, M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Advs. for the Appellant.
Dilip Singh, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
215
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. These appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 are directed against the common order dated 23.01.2018 passed
by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
(“Commission” for short) in Consumer Case Nos.975 and 976 of 2016.
2. In Consumer Case No.976 of 2016, Vrajendra J. Thakkar, HUF
had booked a residential flat with the appellant in a project named “Whi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.