(Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.)
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and Another _________ Appellant(s);
v.
Himanshu Arora and Another ______________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 11097 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12603/2018], decided on November 19, 2018
With
Civil Appeal No. 1109811138 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2585025890/2018]
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(‘NCDRC’) by a Judgment and Order dated 11 December, 2017 disposed of a batch of appeals arising from a decision rendered on 5 December, 2016 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘SCDRC’). Finding the appellants in default of their obligations to the flat purchasers, the SCDRC directed the appellants to pay compensation. The relevant part of the directions is extracted below:
“(iii) To pay compensation, by way of interest @ 12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), from 07.01.2014 in respect of Complaint No. 508/2016 and from the respective dates as given in Column No. 5 in Table – A in respect of eight complaints indicated therein, till 30.11.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount(s) shall carry penal interest @ 15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.
(iv) To pay compensation by way of interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amounts, to the complainant(s) w.e.f. 01.12.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delievered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @ 15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
(v) Pay compensation, in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, and Rs. 35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount(s) shall carry interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.”
3. In appeal, the NCDRC reduced the rate of interest from 12 per cent to 9 per cent.
4. The grievance of the appellants is that while reducing the rate of interest, the NCDRC extended the period over which interest is liable to be paid. As a result, the liability in monetary terms under the impugned order of NCDRC is stated to be higher than under the directions of the SCDRC, despite the reduction in the rate of interest. The SCDRC, in the submission of the appellants, distinguished between those flat buyers who were seeking possession and those who were seeking a refund of monies. For those who were seeking possession, interest was made payable by the SCDRC from the anticipated date of possession, whereas the NCDRC, according to the appellants, has obliterated the distinction between those who sought possession and those who were seeking refund of their monies.
5. On 18th May, 2018, the following Order was passed by this Court:
“Delay condoned.
Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.
Issue notice and stay of further proceedings, subject to the petitioners deposit the amount determined by the order of the State Commission within a period of four weeks from today.”
6. In pursuance of this Order, a deposit was made of an amount of Rs. 5,00,51,784/- (Rupees Five Crores Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Four) which has been recorded in the Order dated 18th June, 2018, which reads as follows:
“Let the amount of Rs. 5,00,51,784/- (Rupees Five Crores Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Four), deposited by the petitioners on 14.06.2018, be deposited in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit in a nationalised Bank, initially for a period of six months, to be renewed from time to time.”
7. Mr. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel has placed a chart on the record. The chart indicates the amount which according to the appellants would have been payable in terms of Clause 15 of the Agreement between the parties, where compensation is liable to be computed at Rs. 10 per sq. ft. of the saleable area for a delay beyond 24 months or such extended periods as permitted under the Agreement. The Chart also indicates the amount which was liable to be paid in terms of the Order of the SCDRC (at 12 per cent after 3 years from the Agreement date) and compensation computed in terms of the Order of the NCDRC at 9 per cent (from the date of payment). The chart indicates that in terms of the order of the SCDRC, the appellants would be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 364.27 Lakhs to 28 flat purchasers whereas in terms of the Order of the NCDRC, the liability of the appellants would be Rs. 564.67 Lakhs.
8. We are not inclined to enquire into the merits of the computation which has been placed on the record on behalf of the appellants. However, it emerges from the submissions which we have recorded earlier that the real grievance of the appellants is that though in the appeal filed in NCDRC by them, the rate of interest was reduced from 12 per cent to 9 per cent, the period over which interest would be payable to those seeking possession has been extended back to the date of payment of monies as a result of which the liability of the appellants has actually increased.
9. Having regard to the above submission, we indicated to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the flat purchasers that it would be appropriate if the interest as ordered by NCDRC at 9% per annum is made payable over the period which was determined by the Order of the SCDRC. There is no objection by the flat purchasers to the aforesaid modification being made. Even otherwise, we are of the view that such a modification would be required in the interests of justice since it was the appellants who had questioned the Order of the SCDRC before the NCDRC.
10. In the above facts and circumstances, we confirm the direction of the NCDRC that the appellants shall pay interest @ 9 per cent per annum. However, the period over which interest shall be payable will be in conformity with the Order passed by the SCDRC.
11. We also direct that in computing the interest payable in terms of the Order of the NCDRC to the extent modified above, the appellants would be entitled to credit for the compensation, if any, which has been paid to any flat buyer in terms of Clause 15 of the flat purchase agreements. In other words, the amount of interest payable shall be computed after deducting any amount that has been paid to the concerned flat buyer under Clause 15 of the agreement.
12. The amount which has been deposited in this Court in pursuance of the Order dated 18.5.2018, shall be transferred by the Registry to the Registrar of the SCDRC, Chandigarh. The appellants shall, within a period of two weeks from today, file a detailed computation with reference to each of the flat buyers and the amount which is due and payable in pursuance of the above directions. The amount shall be duly verified before disbursal, on proper identification, to each of the flat buyers. After completing the above exercise, in the event, that any amount (inclusive of the accrued interest) remains surplus, it shall be refunded to the appellants.
13. Upon the transfer of the amount, the SCDRC shall keep the amount in a short term fixed deposit until the stage of disbursement is reached.
14. The civil appeals are disposed of.
15. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12603/2018
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Etc _________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Himanshu Arora & Anr. Etc ______________________ Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 25850-25890/2018 (XVII)
(IN-PERSON MATTER FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON ON IA 90479/2018)
Date: 19-11-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.)
Counsel for the parties: Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv.
Ms. Seema S., Adv.
Ms. Deepti Sarin, Adv.
Mr. Nakul Gandhi, Adv.
Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Adv.
Mr. Sourabh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Saundarajan, Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Adv.
Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Adv.
M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR
Mr. Amarjeet Singh, AOR
Mr. Narender Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Jain, Adv.
Ms. Aasita, Adv.
Mr. Waheb Hussaini, Adv.
Mr. Kabir Dixit, AOR
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
Respondent-in-person
Mr. Sameer Singh, Adv.
Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
Mr. P.N. Puri, AOR
Mr. Mukand Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Puri, Adv.
Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, Adv.
Ms. Sweta Rani, Adv.
Mr. Anant Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Kathpalia, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
16. Leave granted.
17. The civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
18. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.
———
