Case Note & Summary
This case involved a statutory appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the dismissal of a complaint by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The appellants, who were complainants, alleged that the respondentCompany delayed the construction of an apartment they booked. The third appellant, a member of the Bar, booked a flat in January 2013, which was delayed, leading to a suggestion from the respondentCompany to cancel the booking and book another apartment. The appellants accepted this suggestion and paid a total consideration of Rs.2,77,91,313 for the new apartment, with possession promised within 24 months. However, despite making payments, the appellants claimed that the apartment was not ready by the promised date, leading to their complaint for refund and compensation for mental agony. The respondentCompany contested the complaint, arguing that the appellants did not complete necessary prepossession formalities and that the complaint was premature as the appellants filed it before the grace period for possession expired. The National Commission ruled in favor of the respondentCompany, stating that the appellants had not substantiated their claims and had not complied with the interim order to specify defects. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding no deficiency in service and dismissing the appeal. The court also provided a two-month period for the appellants to find a buyer for the apartment, with specific conditions for possession and transfer of the apartment. The court emphasized that the appellants were not entitled to a refund until the grace period expired and that they had failed to complete the required formalities.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service - No Deficiency Found - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(f), 2(g) - The court found no fault or inadequacy in the service rendered by the respondentCompany as the appellants failed to substantiate their claims of incomplete work and did not comply with the National Commission's interim order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in the complaint (Paras 21-26).
Issue of Consideration
Whether there was any deficiency in service rendered by the respondentCompany and if the appellants were entitled to a refund.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no deficiency in service and upholding the National Commission's ruling. The court granted the appellants two months to find a buyer for the apartment, with specific conditions for possession and transfer.
Law Points
- Consumer protection
- Deficiency in service
- Refund entitlement
- Allotment terms
- Grace period
