Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a consumer complaint filed by the appellants against the respondent-company, a builder, alleging deficiency in service due to delay in handing over possession of an apartment and incomplete construction work. The appellants had initially booked a flat in 2013, but due to delays, they agreed to transfer the booking to another apartment in 2015, with possession promised within 24 months. They paid the full consideration by December 2016, but claimed the apartment was not ready by September 2017, leading them to file a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking a refund of the consideration with interest and compensation. The respondent contested, arguing that possession was offered in October 2016 after obtaining a completion certificate and that the complaint was premature under contractual terms allowing a three-month grace period after the 24-month period. The National Commission dismissed the complaint, finding it filed before the grace period expired and that the appellants failed to provide evidence of defects as directed. On appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appellants argued gross delay and deficiency, while the respondent maintained the offer of possession was valid. The court noted an attempted amicable settlement where the respondent offered to waive a balance payment or transfer the apartment, but the appellants insisted on a refund. In its analysis, the court examined the contractual terms and the timeline, concluding that the complaint was indeed premature as the grace period had not lapsed when filed, and the appellants did not substantiate the alleged deficiencies. The court upheld the National Commission's decision, dismissing the appeal and finding no merit in the claim for refund, as the respondent had offered possession within the contractual framework and the appellants failed to prove deficiency in service.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Deficiency in Service - Refund of Consideration - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 23 - Appellants booked an apartment and paid consideration, alleging delay and incomplete work - National Commission dismissed complaint as premature under contractual grace period - Supreme Court upheld dismissal, finding no deficiency as possession was offered within grace period and appellants failed to prove defects (Paras 1-7). B) Contract Law - Possession and Grace Period - Contractual Terms - Not mentioned - Allotment letter included terms allowing refund only if possession not handed over within three months after 24-month period - Appellants filed complaint before expiry of grace period - Court held complaint premature, as respondent offered possession within contractual timeframe (Paras 6-7). C) Civil Procedure - Amicable Settlement - Settlement Attempts - Not mentioned - Supreme Court encouraged parties to settle amicably - Respondent offered to waive balance payment or transfer apartment to purchaser - Appellants insisted on refund, settlement failed - Court noted attempt but proceeded to decide on merits (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants were entitled to a refund of the consideration paid for an apartment due to alleged deficiency in service by the respondent-company, and whether the complaint was premature under the contractual terms.
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the National Commission's judgment and order dated 29th April 2021, finding no merit in the complaint as it was premature and appellants failed to prove deficiency in service.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- deficiency in service
- refund of consideration
- contractual terms
- possession of property
- pre-possession formalities
- grace period for possession
- burden of proof
- amicable settlement
