LexMARVEL OMEGA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.V. SHRIHARI GOKHALE AND ANR. versus SHRIHARI GOKHALE AND ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 375 MARVEL OMEGA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. SHRIHARI GOKHALE AND ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos.3207-3208 of 2019) JULY 30, 2019 [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.23 – Respondents booked a residential villa viz., Emerald-07 in a project named ‘Marvel Selva Ridge Estate’ to be developed by the Appellants – Agreement dated. 22.03.2013 entered between the parties – Total consideration for the villa was to be Rs.8.31 crores – Respondents paid Rs.8.14 crores by November, 2013 – Though the appellants had agreed to deliver possession on or before 31.12.2014, neither the villa was complete by the due date nor was any refund made by the appellants – Respondents filed complaint before the Commission – Complaint allowed by the Commission inter alia directing refund of the entire principal amount of Rs.8.14 crores to the Respondents with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% p.a.– Appellants filed application seeking extension of time to comply with the judgment – Rejected – On appeal, held: As against the total consideration of Rs.8.31 crores, the Respondents had paid Rs.8.14 crores by November, 2013 – Though the Appellants had undertaken to complete the villa by 31.12.2014, they failed to discharge the obligation – As late as on 28.05.2014, the Revised Construction Schedule had shown the date of delivery of possession to be October, 2014 – Thus, there was total failure on part of the Appellants and they were deficient in rendering service in terms of the obligations undertaken – Even assuming that the villa is now ready for occupation (as asserted by the Appellants), the delay of almost five years is a crucial factor and the bargain cannot now be imposed upon the Respondents – Respondents justified in seeking refund of the amounts deposited with reasonable interest – Findings rendered by the Commission neither incorrect nor unreasonable on any count – Villa in question shall not be sold nor any third party rights can be created by the Appellants in respect of said villa till the decree in favour of the Respondents is completely satisfied – So long as the [2019] 10 S.C.R. 375 375 A B C D E F G H 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R. decree remains to be satisfied, said villa shall be under attachment, subject to such orders as may be required to be passed in connection with the execution of the order passed by the Commission. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 As against the total consideration of Rs.8.31 crores, the Respondents had paid Rs.8.14 crores by November, 2013. Though the Appellants had undertaken to complete the villa by 31.12.2014, they failed to discharge the obligation. As late as on 28.05.2014, the Revised Construction Schedule had shown the date of delivery of possession to be October, 2014. There was, thus, total failure on part of the Appellants and they were deficient in rendering service in terms of the obligations that they had undertaken. Even assuming that the villa is now ready for occupation (as asserted by the Appellants), the delay of almost five years is a crucial factor and the bargain cannot now be imposed upon the Respondents. The Respondents were, therefore, justified in seeking refund of the amounts that they had deposited with reasonable interest on said deposited amount. The findings rendered by the Commission cannot therefore be said to be incorrect or unreasonable on any count. [Para 10] [379-D-F] 1.2 The residential villa admeasuring 648.46 square metres bearing No. Emerald-07 in the complex known as ‘Marvel Selva Ridge Estate’ namely the villa in question shall not be sold nor any third party rights can be created by the Appellants in respect of said villa till the decree in favour of the Respondents is completely satisfied and so long as the decree remains to be satisfied, said villa shall be under attachment and would be subject to such orders as may be required to be passed in connection with the execution of the order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the Commission in Consumer Case No.2010 of 2016. [Para 11] [379- G-H; 380-A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3207- 3208 of 2019 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2018 of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Miscellaneous Application No. 578 of 2018 A B C D E F G H 377 R. P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv., Javed Shaikh, R. C. Sharma, Rahul Kr. Singh, R. P. Chhibber, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Advs. for the Appellants. Saurabh Jai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.