LexG H M/S TREATY CONSTRUCTION & ANR. versus M/S RUBY TOWER CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R. M/S TREATY CONSTRUCTION & ANR. v. M/S RUBY TOWER CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 5699 of 2019) JULY 19, 2019 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.] Consumer Protection – Deficiency of service – Appellants evolved a scheme of constructing a building consisting of flats and shops – Purchasers of those flats and shops formed a co-operative housing society – In relation to the project in question, dispute arose between the members of the respondent-society and appellants- builders – Respondent-society contended that appellants failed to complete the interior works and failed to obtain the completion certification as also the occupancy certificate – It was also alleged that appellants borrowed varied sums of money from the respondent- society on pretext of completing the unfinished work – On the other hand, appellants contended that delay was due to the obstruction caused and created by the respondent, who had made illegal construction/alterations – State Commission, inter alia, directed appellants to execute Deed of conveyance of the property in question after obtaining the completion certificate and occupancy certificate and entitled the respondent for refund of amount of Rs.26,25,000/ -, which was given to obtain possession of the flat – Before, National Commission, appellants denied the receipt of the loan amount of Rs.26,25,000/- – The said submission was accepted by the National Commission, however, it held that appellants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the respondent-society in the meeting dated 17.12.2003, therefore, the appellants were bound by the admission so made by them and were liable to that extent – National Commission also directed appellants to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for not obtaining occupancy certificate and directed appellants to pay Rs.1000/- per day after 60 days of the order and until obtaining full occupancy certificate – On appeal, held: Direction by the National Commission as regards payment of sum of Rs.25,00,000/- [2019] 9 S.C.R. 606 606 A B C D E F G H 607 by the appellants to the respondent requires no interference – Insofar other directions are concerned, there was no record to hold the appellants liable for compensation – In other words, there was no material on record to find if respondent-society or its members suffered any loss – Therefore, part of order directing appellants to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- set aside – Also, Municipal Corporation had issued notices regarding alterations by the members of the respondent-society and dispute regarding the same has not settled as the High Court has directed for inspection of the building and necessary follow up steps – Thus, in the circumstances, part of the impugned order requiring the appellants to pay Rs.1000/ - per day after 60 days of the order, also set aside – Appellants and respondent directed to complete all requisites on their part – After completion of all the requisites by the parties, the appellants directed to execute the Deed of conveyance in favour of the respondent- society after obtaining necessary occupancy certificate – Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 – ss.4 and 11. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. Indisputably, in the application dated 21.03.2013 as moved before the State Commission, the respondent-society restricted its prayer for money recovery to a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with reference to the minutes of meetings dated 17.12.2003 and 14.12.2003. It is at once clear that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by the appellants in full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent-society. The appellants having agreed to make such payment, the National Commission has rightly put them to the terms of honouring their unequivocal commitment/promise. In the given set of facts and circumstance, this Court is unable to accept the contention that a particular part of order of the State Commission having not been challenged by the respondent- society, the National Commission could not have granted the relief otherwise available on the face of record. In an overall view of the matter, when such a relief emanates from the very commitment made by the appellants in the meetings aforesaid, M/S TREATY CONSTRUCTION v. M/S RUBY TOWER CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD. A B C D E F G H 608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.