Case Note & Summary
The case involved appeals under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, concerning a dispute between a real estate developer and a consumer regarding the non-delivery of an apartment. The consumer, Sushma Ashok Shiroor, booked an apartment with Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 2,36,15,726, with an agreement stipulating possession within 42 months. However, possession was not granted even after the stipulated period, leading the consumer to file a complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking a refund of Rs. 2,06,41,379 with interest. The Commission ruled in favor of the consumer, directing the developer to refund the amount with interest at 9% per annum, citing the unfair nature of the agreement's terms. The developer appealed, arguing that the Commission's decision was incorrect and that the terms of the agreement should govern the relationship. The Supreme Court upheld the Commission's findings, emphasizing that the terms of the agreement were one-sided and constituted an unfair trade practice. The court also clarified that the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act are concurrent and can coexist. The court affirmed the Commission's authority to direct refunds under the Consumer Protection Act, reinforcing consumer rights in real estate transactions. The final decision favored the consumer, allowing for the refund with interest as ordered by the Commission.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Unfair Trade Practice - Terms of Agreement - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(r) - The terms of the Apartment Buyers Agreement were found to be one-sided and unfair to the consumer, constituting an unfair trade practice. The court upheld the Commission's order directing the developer to refund the amount paid by the consumer with interest. Held that the consumer is not bound to accept possession of the apartment and can seek a refund (Paras 10-20). B) Consumer Protection - Power to Direct Refund - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 14 - The Commission has the power to direct refund of the amount paid by the consumer with interest for deficiency in service. The court clarified that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are additional to those under the RERA Act, and both can operate concurrently (Paras 11-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the terms of the Apartment Buyers Agreement amount to an unfair trade practice and whether the Commission has the power to direct refund under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the Commission's order directing the Developer to refund Rs. 2,06,41,379 with interest at 9% per annum, affirming the unfair nature of the agreement's terms and the Commission's authority to grant such relief.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act
- 2016
- unfair trade practice
- deficiency of service
- refund with interest
