Supreme Court Hears Appeal Against NCDRC Order Directing Refund with 9% Interest in Consumer Dispute Over Delayed Plot Allotment. The Court Examined Whether Unilateral Offer Without Complainant's Consent and Additional Charges Beyond Agreement Were Valid Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Consumer complaint before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for delayed plot allotment and refund, appealed to Supreme Court

Appellant sought refund of Rs.43,13,212/- with 24% interest p.a. and Rs.72,30,000/- for loss of appreciation, and challenged NCDRC order awarding only 9% simple interest

Appellant booked plot in 2006 and paid amounts; respondent delayed possession and demanded disputed charges; appellant terminated agreement and filed complaint

NCDRC disposed complaint directing respondent to refund principal amount of Rs.43,13,212/- with simple interest @9% p.a. from date of each payment till refund, plus Rs.25,000 litigation costs, based solely on respondent counsel's offer without merits

Whether NCDRC erred in disposing the complaint based on respondent's unilateral offer without appellant's consent Whether interest @9% p.a. awarded by NCDRC is adequate compensation given respondent's delay and its contractual interest of 18% p.a. Whether respondent was entitled to charge various additional amounts (as detailed) beyond the agreement Whether proof of actual loss is required for award of compensation under Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Appellant: NCDRC forced upon him refund with meagre 9% interest despite respondent's inaction; possession not delivered until 2018 though plot booked in 2006. Appellant: Respondent wrongly charged additional amounts for alternative plot, Enhanced EDC, interest, GST, electricity/STP charges, and unexplained PLC; these were not part of agreement. Appellant: Respondent charged 18% p.a. for appellant's default but agreed to refund only at 9%, which is inequitable. Respondent: Under Section 14(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, consumer must prove actual loss; appellant failed to lead evidence; compensation cannot be gain-based. Respondent: Courts have consistently awarded 9% interest and rejected parity with builder's default rate, citing Ghaziabad Development Authority, Fortune Infrastructure, IREO Grace Realtech, Vidya v. Parsvnath, and Kolkata West International City.

The impugned order nowhere records that the appellant accepted such an offer. Rather, the NCDRC disposed of the matter merely based on the offer made by the counsel for the respondent. Evidence must be led to prove actual loss suffered by the consumer before the grant of compensation. Grant of compensation cannot be beyond actual loss and cannot venture into the territory of gain-based remedies. The delay compensation specified in the apartment buyer's Agreement of Rs 7.5 per square foot ... cannot be accepted as being adequate compensation for the delay in the construction of the project. At the same time, we cannot accept the claim of the apartment buyers for payment of compound interest @ 20% p.a., which has no nexus with the commercial realities of the prevailing market.

On 10 March 2006, appellant booked plot and paid advance. On 11 December 2007, plot buyer agreement executed. On 13 April 2011, respondent offered alternative plot and addendum executed. On 27 March 2017, appellant terminated agreement and issued legal notice seeking refund. In April 2018, appellant filed Consumer Case No. 885 of 2018 before NCDRC. On 8 May 2018, respondent offered possession subject to further payment. On 13 January 2023, NCDRC passed impugned order directing refund with 9% interest. Thereafter, appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 3988 of 2023 before Supreme Court.

• Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 13, Section 14, Section 14(1)(d)