Judgment dated 6th September 2024
Cause title : DHARMENDRA SHARMA. vs AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2809-2810 of 2024
A Bench of Supreme Court Judges Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Prasanna Balachandra Varale partly allowed the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the final Judgment passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The only issue in the matter was as to whether the possession as offered on 04.12.2014 should be taken as a valid offer of possession even if there was no completion certificate and also whether the firefighting clearance certificate was available with the ADA or not.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
"...On the other hand, the ADA, despite making an offer of
possession in 2014, did not fulfil its statutory obligations by
providing the requisite completion certificate and firefighting
clearance certificate, both of which are essential for a valid and
lawful offer of possession. The absence of these documents, which
were also not furnished before the NCDRC, unquestionably vitiates
the offer of possession made by the ADA."
Facts of the case are:
The appellant -Dharmendra Sharma had applied for allotment and
purchase of an apartment (residential flat) in the category of Super
Deluxe 2 on 28.07.2011 and had deposited the booking amount of
Rs.4,60,000/- along with the application. This application was
submitted pursuant to an advertisement issued by the ADA for a group
housing project lodged in the name of ADA Heights, Taj Nagari, Phase
II at Fatehabad Road, near Taj Express Way, Ring Road, Agra. The
allotment was done by lottery system on 29.08.2011 whereby the
appellant was allotted Flat No.DT-1/1204 which was communicated vide
letter dated 19.09.2011, according to which the tentative price of
the apartment was Rs.56,54,000/- which could be deposited in 24
equal quarterly instalments or could be paid in full with certain
other relaxations. The appellant, opted for full payment and
accordingly vide letter dated 21.10.2011, attached two cheques, one
by the appellant of Rs.6.94 lakhs and the other of Rs.45 lakhs
issued by the LIC Housing Finance Limited.
Possession was to be given within six months under the scheme. Upon
completion of six months, the appellant requested for possession
vide communication dated 03.04.2012. Apparently, the construction
was not completed and, in any case, not ready for delivery of
possession, as such no possession was delivered even after six
months. The appellant thereafter received a communication dated
04.02.2014 offering possession subject to further payment of
Rs.3,43,178/- along with non-judicial stamp paper for execution of
the deed amounting to Rs.3,99,100/-.
On receipt of the said letter, the appellant visited the site as
also the office of ADA on 15.02.2014. He deposited the non-judicial
stamp papers as required of Rs.3,99,100/-. But after inspection of
the site, he found various deficiencies in the construction which
were reported to the Assistant Engineer of the ADA with the request
that once the deficiencies are removed, he may be communicated for
taking over possession. ADA sent reminders dated 22.09.2014 and
20/21.11.2014 for
depositing the balance amount of Rs.3,82,748/-.
The appellant, on the other hand, was demanding for completion
certificate. There is a further communication by the ADA dated
17.01.2018 demanding an amount of Rs.6,11,575/- and for taking
possession after depositing the same and getting the deed executed.
On the other hand, the appellant, vide communication dated
02.04.2018, requested for waiver of interest on the balance amount
and also sought confirmation whether the flat was ready for physical
possession.
It was thereafter that the appellant along with letter dated
04.06.2019, sent a cheque dated 01.06.2019 for Rs.3,43,178/- and
again requested for confirmation of the date of possession. The ADA
encashed the said cheque but did not inform any
date for handing over possession. It looks like the appellant got
the loan transferred to the State Bank of India whereupon the SBI is
writing letters demanding the title deed of the apartment vide
communications dated 14.03.2017, 25.06.2019 and 19.10.2019. These
communications further mention that in case the title deed is not
deposited, then penal interest @2% p.a. would be levied. The
appellant again reiterated his earlier request for waiver of
interest on balance amount vide reminder dated 18.09.2019 and again
requested for confirmation whether the flat was ready for physical
possession. The appellant again visited the office of ADA on
23.11.2019 and requested for completion certificate and firefighting
clearance certificate, which were not provided. He again visited the
site and found that the apartment was not in a habitable condition.
The appellant thus proceeded to institute a complaint before the
NCDRC on 10.07.2020 alleging deficiency in service as also unfair
trade practice on the part of ADA.
While partly allowing the Civil Appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"22. This Court is of the considered view that both parties
have exhibited lapses in their respective obligations. On the one
hand, the appellant, despite having paid the tentative price of Rs.
56,54,000/- in 2012, failed to remit the additional amount of Rs.
3,43,178/-, as demanded by the ADA, even after being repeatedly
reminded. Instead, the appellant persistently sought a waiver of the
penal interest on the delayed payment, eventually settling the
amount only on 04.06.2019, a significant delay that cannot be
overlooked and that too without the interest component which had
further accrued over a period of about five years. On the other
hand, the ADA, despite making an offer of possession in 2014, did
not fulfil its statutory obligations by providing the requisite
completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate, both
of which are essential for a valid and lawful offer of possession.
The absence of these documents, which were also not furnished before
the NCDRC, unquestionably vitiates the offer of possession made by
the ADA.
23. In light of the aforementioned observations and taking into
account the shortcomings on the part of both the appellant and the
ADA, this Court deems it appropriate to provide a compensation of Rs.
15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs only) apart from what was awarded by the
NCDRC. Therefore, apart from the refund of the entire amount
deposited by the appellant @ 9% interest per annum from 11.07.2020
till the date of refund, the ADA is directed to pay an additional
amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs only) to the appellant.
The entire amount should be rendered to the appellant within
three months of this order. We also order the ADA to return the
non-judicial stamp worth Rs. 3,99,100/- back to the appellant.
24. Furthermore, we refrain from imposing any exemplary costs on
either party, recognizing that both have contributed to the
situation at hand. It is also to be noted that the ADA, being a
civic body tasked with serving the public and operating on a
non-profit basis, should not be unduly penalized in a manner that
could impede its functioning.
25. The Civil Appeals 2809-2810 of 2024 are disposed of accordingly.
26. The appeal filed by the ADA i.e. Civil Appeal No.6344 of 2024 stands dismissed, as its primary arguments regarding both limitation and pecuniary jurisdiction are found to be without merit."
Download order dated 6th September 2024 in DHARMENDRA SHARMA. vs AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Civil Appeal Nos. 2809-2810 of 2024