Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Mohd. Naiem Khan Vs. M/S. Maliha Realtor Pvt. Ltd
Case No.: F.A. No. 621/2020
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by Dr. Sadhna Shanker, has ruled that any amount forfeited due to a breach of contract must be fair and justifiable. In this specific case, the Commission decided that the builder is allowed to forfeit only 10% of the amount deposited by the buyer and must refund the remaining balance.
### Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant booked a flat in the “TAJ HEIGHTS” scheme by Maliha Realtor for a total price of Rs. 34,14,000. Initially, Rs. 11,501 was paid, followed by payments of Rs. 3,17,250 and Rs. 7,93,125. The realtor was supposed to hand over the flat within two years, but this did not happen. The complainant had paid a total of Rs. 11,21,876 but only received a refund of Rs. 7,20,000. Dissatisfied, the complainant filed a case for deficiency in service with the State Commission of Delhi, which dismissed the complaint and imposed a cost of Rs. 5000 on the complainant. Unhappy with this decision, the complainant appealed to the National Commission.
### Realtor’s Contentions
The realtor argued that the complainant had already received Rs. 5 lakh through two cheques and an additional Rs. 2,20,000 through another cheque. The realtor also claimed that the complaint was time-barred and that there was no deficiency in their service, requesting the dismissal of the complaint.
### Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission noted that the complainant had applied for a refund and received Rs. 7,20,000 within two years before filing the complaint in 2016. In terms of forfeiture, the Commission referenced previous cases like Maula Bux Vs. Union of India (1970) and Sirdar K.B. Ram Chandra Raj Urs Vs. Sarah C. Urs (2015), which stated that forfeiture should be reasonable and proportional to actual damages, not punitive.
The Commission allowed the appeal and directed the realtor to forfeit only 10% of the deposited amount. It ordered a refund of Rs. 2,89,689 with 9% interest per annum, overturning the State Commission’s earlier ruling.
### Takeaway
This judgment underscores the principle that forfeiture due to contract breaches must be fair and reasonable. Builders cannot arbitrarily withhold large sums of money; any forfeiture must be proportional to the actual damages incurred. For consumers, this case reinforces the importance of understanding your rights and that justice can be sought when service providers fail to meet their obligations.
