DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD versus D.S. DHANDA, ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 1061 · Decided: 10-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1061
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD
v.
D.S. DHANDA, ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019)
MAY 10, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Respondents-Complainants
booked built up flats for purchase in one of the project of the
appellant – Buyer’s Agreements executed– Possession of the unit
was to be delivered within 24 months from the date of execution of
the agreement, failing which the appellant was liable to pay Rs. 10/
- per sq. ft. per month for the period of delay – Complaints filed
before State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC)
alleging delay in delivery of possession – Appellant inter alia pleaded
that construction could not be completed because of the stay on
construction granted by Supreme Court which opearted for about
8 months – SCDRC directed the appellant to hand over the physical
possession of the units allotted to the respondents, complete in all
respects within four months – National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission (NCDRC) partially modified the order – On appeal,
held: There is no surviving dispute in respect of extended period of
handing over possession available to the appellant i.e 36 months,
in view of the consent it obtained from the respondents to extend
the period of handing over possession further by one year– It is
categorical stand of the appellant that the flats have been completed
and occupation certificate has also been obtained – SCDRC and
NCDRC awarded compensation under multiple heads on account
of singular default of not handing over possession–For delay in
handing over possession, the consumer is entitled to the
consequences agreed at the time of executing buyer’s agreement –
Though the 1986 Act empowers the authorities to award
compensation for any loss or injury including building damages
but the order of NCDRC or SCDRC awarding compensation is by
rule of thumb, without any foundation on judicially recognised
principles – Complainant entitled to interest as offered, for not
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 1061
1061
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
handing over possession, but present is not a case to award special
punitive damages as one of the causes for late delivery of possession
was beyond the control of the appellant – In view of the settlement
proposal submitted by the appellant in earlier two set of appeals
before Supreme Court in respect of the same project and to settle
any further controversy, directions issued to the appellant.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Respondents-Complainants
booked built up flats for purchase in one of the project of the
appellant – Amount deposited by the respondents – Delay in delivery
of possession of the flats – Award of interest – Held: Amount of
interest is the compensation to the beneficiary deprived of the use
of the investment made by the complainant – Therefore, such interest
will take into its ambit, the consequences of delay in not handing
over possession.
Words & Phrases – “Interest” – Meaning of – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The similar dispute in respect of same project
came up for decision before Supreme Court in DLF Homes
Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and Another Etc. v. Himanshu Arora and
Another, Etc..  The said set of appeals were decided on consent
granting interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Subsequently,
another set of appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 2285-2330 of 2019 titled
DLF Homes Panchkula (P.) Ltd. vs. Sushila Devi and Another came
up for decision before Supreme Court including appeals filed by
the Appellants as well as by the Complainants. Such appeals were
also decided by consent. [Paras 6, 7] [1070-C-E]
1.2  The appellant offered for built up 1775 flats in its project
the DLF Valley in Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex,
Panchkula, Haryana. Some of the disputes settled in earlier two
rounds of appeals, whereas, many complaints are still pending
before different fora. There is no surviving dispute in respect of
extended period of handing over possession available to the
Appellant i.e. 36 months. By virtue of such extended period, the
possession was required to be handed over on or about
11.02.2014. It is categorical stand of the Appellant that the flats
have been completed and occupation certificate obtained from
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1063
the Office of Director, Town and Country Planning Department
of State of Haryana. The NCDRC rightly held that compensation
for loss, mental agony, litig

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