Builder loses right to file defense but can argue legal issues in delayed flat delivery case

The SC partially allowed the appeal in a construction deficiency case involving delayed flat delivery. The builder had forfeited its right to file a written statement under Annexure P-18 order but could still participate in proceedings within legal limits. The court held that Consumer Protection Act proceedings don't automatically apply CPC provisions except under Section 38(9), but CPC principles guide consequences of forfeited pleading rights. The builder could only argue legal questions and procedural lapses without introducing new factual contentions. The court modified NCDRC's compensation formula, ordering the developer to pay 6% annual interest from September 2014 until possession is offered to buyers.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deficiency in service by the builder.
2. Delay in handing over possession of flats.
3. Compensation for delayed possession.
4. Refund of car parking fee.
5. Refund of excess legal fee.
6. Refund of BESCOM & BWSSB charges.
7. Provision of promised amenities (Green Jogging Track and Convenience Store).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deficiency in Service by the Builder:
The appellants, along with proforma respondents, filed a complaint against the builder alleging deficiency in service due to significant delays in construction and possession of flats. The NCDRC recognized the delay and partially allowed the complaint, directing the builder to pay delayed compensation in the form of interest at 6% per annum on the deposits from the due date of possession until the offer of possession.

2. Delay in Handing Over Possession of Flats:
The Construction Agreement stipulated that possession was to be handed over by March 2014, with a six-month grace period. However, possession was delayed by approximately four years. The NCDRC acknowledged this delay and directed the builder to compensate the buyers with interest at 6% per annum from the due date of possession until the actual possession was offered.

3. Compensation for Delayed Possession:
The appellants sought compensatory interest at 18% per annum for the delay. The NCDRC, however, awarded interest at 6% per annum. The Supreme Court modified the NCDRC's formula for calculating the due date for possession, stating it should be six months from the promised date of March 2014, thereby fixing the due date for possession as September 2014. The interest at 6% per annum was to be calculated from this revised due date until the actual possession date.

4. Refund of Car Parking Fee:
The appellants claimed a refund of the car parking fee with interest. The NCDRC rejected this claim, referencing a previous decision in a similar case (CC/913/2016), which was upheld by the Supreme Court in R.V. Prasannakumaar's case. The Supreme Court affirmed the NCDRC's decision on this matter.

5. Refund of Excess Legal Fee:
The appellants sought a refund of the excess legal fee charged by the builder. The NCDRC denied this claim due to a lack of evidence from the complainants to determine the legal fee. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, agreeing with the NCDRC's reasoning.

6. Refund of BESCOM & BWSSB Charges:
The appellants requested a refund of the charges for BESCOM & BWSSB. The NCDRC's decision on this matter was not explicitly detailed in the judgment, implying no significant deviation from the builder's charges was found.

7. Provision of Promised Amenities:
The appellants demanded the provision of a Green Jogging Track and Convenience Store as promised in the brochure. The NCDRC directed the builder to construct these amenities within two months from the date of the judgment. The Supreme Court upheld this directive.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the NCDRC's formula for calculating the due date for possession and affirming the interest rate of 6% per annum for delayed possession. The claims for refunds of car parking fees and excess legal fees were rejected, while the directive to construct promised amenities was upheld. The NCDRC was instructed to verify the dates of possession offers for each flat purchaser to determine the builder's liability accurately.

---