Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Baibhab Sur Vs. Swapan Sengupta
Case No.: F.A. No. 263/2018
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, has ruled that compensation should cover both the losses incurred and the restoration of what was lost, setting a 9% interest rate as reasonable.
Case Background
The complainant, Baibhab Sur, entered into agreements with a developer and landowners to purchase a flat and a car parking space for ₹28,05,000. Despite paying ₹25,25,000, which included ₹25,000 for an electric meter, the property was not delivered in a habitable condition within the agreed timeframe. Though the complainant was ready to pay the remaining ₹3,05,000, the developer did not honor the contract. This led the complainant to approach the State Commission of West Bengal, which directed the developer to pay ₹3,00,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 for litigation costs. Unsatisfied with this order, the complainant appealed to the National Commission.
Developer’s Absence
The developer did not participate in the proceedings, resulting in an ex parte decision.
National Commission’s Observations
The National Commission referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Fortune Infrastructure Vs Trevor D’ Lima (2018) and Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs Devasis Rudra (2019), highlighting that buyers should not have to wait indefinitely for possession. In the current case, the complainant had waited over nine years, a delay deemed unreasonable. The developer’s failure to deliver the property after receiving nearly 90% of the payment was seen as a clear deficiency in service.
The complainant’s demands for compensation, adjustments, and legal costs were found to be justified. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sushma Ashok Shiroor (2022) also supported the notion that compensation should be both compensatory and restitutionary, with a 9% interest rate considered fair.
Final Decision
The National Commission allowed the appeal, ordering the developer to hand over possession within two months at no extra cost. Additionally, the developer was directed to compensate for the delay at a rate of 6% per annum and to pay ₹1 lakh towards litigation costs.
Takeaway
This judgment underscores the importance of timely possession and fair compensation for delays. Buyers should not have to endure indefinite waits, and developers are held accountable for meeting their contractual obligations.
