Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Judgment on Delay in Possession: Balancing Interests of Allottee and Developer "Supreme Court affirms NCDRC's order for refund with interest, recognizing delays from both parties; upholds jurisdiction and considers absence of completion certificate."


Summary of Judgement

The Supreme Court addressed appeals arising from a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) judgment concerning a housing dispute. The NCDRC ordered a refund with interest to the appellant, Dharmendra Sharma, for delays in possession of a flat by the Agra Development Authority (ADA). The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's decision, recognizing both parties' contributions to delays, validating the NCDRC's jurisdiction, and affirming the requirement for a completion certificate for a valid offer of possession.

1. Background of the Case:

  • Appellant's Application: Dharmendra Sharma applied for an apartment in the ADA Heights project, Agra, in 2011, deposited the booking amount, and opted for full payment.
  • Offer of Possession: ADA offered possession on 04.02.2014, subject to additional payments. Sharma alleged deficiencies in construction and demanded necessary certificates.
  • Deficiency Allegations: Sharma filed a complaint with the NCDRC in July 2020, alleging a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by ADA for not providing possession in a habitable condition.

2. NCDRC's Decision:

  • Refund Ordered: The NCDRC ordered a refund of the deposited amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of the complaint.
  • Objections Rejected: The NCDRC rejected ADA's objections on limitation and pecuniary jurisdiction, holding that continued communications and part payments extended the limitation period.

3. Appeals Filed:

  • Appellant's Appeal: Sharma sought interest from the date of deposit rather than from the date of the complaint.
  • ADA's Appeal: ADA contended that the complaint was time-barred and beyond NCDRC's pecuniary jurisdiction.

4. Supreme Court's Findings:

  • Limitation Period: The Court upheld the NCDRC's finding that the limitation period was extended due to ADA's ongoing communications and acceptance of payments.
  • Pecuniary Jurisdiction: The Court affirmed that the NCDRC had jurisdiction as the claim exceeded Rs. 1 crore, considering compensation for mental agony and harassment.
  • Validity of Possession Offer: The Court found that the absence of a completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate made ADA's offer of possession legally invalid.

5. Conclusion:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that both parties contributed to delays and balanced interests by granting the refund with interest from the date of the complaint, not the deposit date. It upheld the NCDRC's jurisdiction and noted the illegality of the possession offer without required certificates.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

  1. Consumer Protection Act, 1986:

    • Section 23: Appeal to the Supreme Court.
    • Section 24A: Limitation period for filing complaints.
    • Section 21(a)(i): Pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC.
  2. Limitation Act, 1963:

    • Sections 18 and 19: Extension of the limitation period due to part payment or acknowledgment.
  3. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA):

    • Section 19(10): Requirement for a completion certificate before offering possession.
  4. UP Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010:

    • Section 4(5): Requirement for a completion certificate and firefighting clearance before offering possession.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court upheld that the NCDRC rightly considered the extended limitation period due to ongoing transactions and communications between the parties, confirming the jurisdiction of the NCDRC based on the total claim amount, and correctly applied legal principles regarding the validity of possession offers without completion and clearance certificates. The judgment balances the equities between the parties, recognizing both parties' contributions to delays and affirming that the absence of necessary certificates rendered the offer of possession invalid.

The Judgement

Case Title: DHARMENDRA SHARMA VERSUS AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: 2024 LawText (SC) (9) 66

Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2809-2810 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.6344 OF 2024

Date of Decision: 2024-09-06