2020 (6) TMI 836 - SC - Indian Laws

Developer Ordered to Refund Over Rs 2.9 Crore Plus Interest for Delayed Flat Possession; SC Affirms with Adjustments.

The NCDRC directed the developer to refund Rs 2,96,89,370 with interest to flat buyers due to delayed possession. The SC affirmed this, requiring the ... Refund claim with interest - failure to hand over possession of constructed premises - HELD THAT:- Under the terms of the subvention scheme, interest was payable by the developer to the bank for a stipulated period. This, however, cannot dilute the responsibility of the developer to refund the entire amount of consideration which has been received for the flat to the flat buyers - the order for refund in the amount of Rs 2,96,89,370 does not warrant any interference. However, in view of the orders which have been passed by this Court in other cases, and having due regard to market conditions we scale down the interest to nine per cent per annum. The Court has been apprised that in execution of the order of the NCDRC, four bank accounts of the builder have been attached - the direction of the NCDRC restraining the builder from deducting tax at source to be vacated - appeal disposed off. Issues:1. Delay in possession of flat and refund of amount with interest.2. Interpretation of terms of tripartite agreement and subvention scheme.3. Responsibility of developer to refund entire consideration to flat buyers.4. Determination of interest rate for refund.5. Execution of refund order and lifting of attachment by NCDRC.Issue 1: Delay in possession of flat and refund of amount with interest:The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directed the appellant to refund an amount of Rs 2,96,89,370 with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum, liable to increase to fourteen per cent if payment is not made within forty-five days. The delay in possession of the flat, which was supposed to be handed over by December 2016, led to the refund order. The NCDRC held that after three years of the agreed possession date, the flat buyers were not obligated to pursue the remedy for obtaining possession.Issue 2: Interpretation of terms of tripartite agreement and subvention scheme:The appellant argued that payments made to HDFC Limited under the subvention scheme should be excluded from the refund obligation. The appellant also sought a reduction in the interest rate payable for the refund, citing market conditions and previous court orders. In response, it was contended that the entire consideration paid to the developer, including payments made directly or through the bank, must be refunded to the flat buyers.Issue 3: Responsibility of developer to refund entire consideration to flat buyers:The Supreme Court affirmed that the developer must refund the total consideration received, amounting to Rs 2,96,89,370, to the flat buyers. The court emphasized that the developer's obligation to refund the entire amount could not be diluted by payments made to the bank under the subvention scheme.Issue 4: Determination of interest rate for refund:While upholding the refund order, the court decided to scale down the interest rate to nine per cent per annum, considering market conditions and previous court rulings in similar cases involving refunds to flat buyers.Issue 5: Execution of refund order and lifting of attachment by NCDRC:The appellant agreed to pay the refund amount within two weeks, leading to the lifting of the attachment on the builder's bank accounts by the NCDRC. The court also vacated the NCDRC's direction restraining the builder from deducting tax at source, emphasizing compliance with legal requirements.In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, ensuring the refund of the specified amount with adjusted interest and necessary actions for execution and compliance with the court's directions.