Unfair apartment buyer clauses and concurrent consumer remedies support refund with interest for delayed possession.

One-sided apartment buyer clauses that heavily favour the developer and impose nominal delay compensation may be treated as unfair, and a consumer facing inordinate delay is not bound to accept belated possession instead of refund. Consumer fora may direct refund with interest under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 even where remedies under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 are available, because the two regimes operate concurrently and consumer choice of relief is preserved. Refund interest is restitutionary and ordinarily runs from the respective dates of deposit; the rate fixed by the Commission may be maintained if found fair.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the apartment buyer's agreement contained one-sided terms amounting to an unfair trade practice and whether the consumer was bound by the possession and delay-compensation clauses; (ii) Whether the Consumer Commission had jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct refund with interest notwithstanding the remedies under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; (iii) Whether the relief of refund and interest required modification, including the date from which interest would run and the rate of interest.

Issue (i): Whether the apartment buyer's agreement contained one-sided terms amounting to an unfair trade practice and whether the consumer was bound by the possession and delay-compensation clauses.

Analysis: The stipulated possession period had expired long before possession was offered, while the delay-compensation clause fixed a nominal compensation that was entirely one-sided and heavily tilted in favour of the developer. The contractual terms were analogous to those earlier held to be unfair and unreasonable in consumer housing disputes. A consumer who has been subjected to inordinate delay is not compelled to accept possession merely because it is eventually offered, and the builder cannot insist on enforcing oppressive standard-form clauses.

Conclusion: The agreement contained one-sided and unfair terms, and the consumer was not bound to accept delayed possession in lieu of refund.

Issue (ii): Whether the Consumer Commission had jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct refund with interest notwithstanding the remedies under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Analysis: The remedies under the consumer law and the real estate statute operate concurrently and do not exclude one another. The consumer statute confers an independent power to order return of the price or charges paid where deficiency in service is proved, and the real estate statute also preserves other remedies by its express language. The consumer's election to proceed under one statute does not extinguish the jurisdiction of the consumer forum, and the choice of relief belongs to the consumer, subject to the merits of the case.

Conclusion: The Commission had jurisdiction to direct refund with interest under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Issue (iii): Whether the relief of refund and interest required modification, including the date from which interest would run and the rate of interest.

Analysis: Refund interest must be restitutionary as well as compensatory, and therefore should ordinarily run from the dates of deposit rather than from the last deposit or the expected date of possession. At the same time, the rate fixed by the Commission was found to be fair and just, and no enhancement was warranted. The consumer's challenge succeeded only to the limited extent of securing interest from the dates of individual deposits.

Conclusion: The refund direction was modified only to make interest payable from the respective dates of deposit, while the rate of interest was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The developer's appeal failed, the consumer's appeal succeeded only in part on the question of the commencement of interest, and the refund order was sustained with this limited modification.

Ratio Decidendi: One-sided apartment buyer clauses may be treated as unfair trade practice, and consumer fora may order refund with interest for delayed possession because consumer remedies and RERA remedies are concurrent and the consumer retains the choice of relief.

---