CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 OF 2019) DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR VS. SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

                                      1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2285-2330  OF 2019                                                                                                        (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.928-930, 932 TO 938, 940

TO 967 AND 969 TO 976 of 2019)

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH …Appellant ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR

VERSUS

SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR. ETC. …Respondents

WITH  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.931, 939 AND 968 OF 2019

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH …Petitioner ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR

VERSUS

MRIDULA SOOD ETC..        …Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2354  OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26519 of 2018)

RAVI DATT AGGARWAL AND ORS.            …

Appellants

VERSUS

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD. AND ORS. …Respondents

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 OF 2019) DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR VS. SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

                                      2

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted in all  matters,  except  Special  Leave Petition (Civil)

Nos.931 of 2019, 939 of 2019 and 968 of 2019.  

Re:    Appeals arising   out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.928-976 of   2019  1   (DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. Through its Authorised Signatory Mr.   Shiv Kumar v. Sushila Devi and another  2      [Except Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.931 of 2019, 939 of 2019 and 968 of 2019]

2. These appeals are directed against the final  judgment and order dated

07.09.2018  passed  by  the  National  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal

Commission,  New  Delhi  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  National

Commission’) in First Appeal Nos.382/2016, 447/2016, 453/2017,  648/2016,

649/2016, 650/2016, 651/2016, 767/2016, 879/2016, 881/2016,  1145/2016,

1146/2016,  1147/2016,  1158/2016,  1315/2016,  1347/2016,  1348/2016,

1349/2016,  1351/2016,  1352/2016,  1576/2016,  1577/2016,  1578/2016,

1579/2016,  1580/2016,  1581/2016,  1582/2016,  1583/2016,  1584/2016,

1586/2016,  1587/2016,  1589/2016,  1590/2016,  1591/2016,  1592/2016,

1

2  (Appeals by the Developer)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 OF 2019) DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR VS. SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

                                      3

1593/2016,  1594/2016,  1595/2016,  1598/2016,  1599/2016,  1600/2016,

1601/2016, 1622/2016, 1623/2016, 1625/2016 and 1643/2017.

3. The original complainants had booked apartments in a project titled

“DLF Valley, Panchkula” situated in Panchkula, Haryana, which was to be

developed  by  the  Developer.   The  Developer  had  promised  to  handover

possession  within  24  months  from the  date  of  signing  of  the  agreement.

Various  complaints came to  be  filed  by the Complainants  submitting that

despite period of two years being over there was no substantial progress and

as  such,  the  Developer  was  deficient  in  rendering  service.   Some  of  the

Complainants prayed for refund of all the moneys they had deposited from

time to time along with interest and compensation while others sought relief

in the nature of compensation for delayed delivery of possession but insisted

that the possession of the apartments be handed over to them.  

4. The  State  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission,  UT,

Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) by its various

orders allowed the complaints and directed refund of the amounts deposited

by the concerned Complainants with interest @ 15% per annum in some cases

and with lesser  rate  in others  and compensation.   Similar  directions  were

passed in cases of delayed delivery of possession.  These orders passed by the

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 OF 2019) DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR VS. SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

                                      4

State  Commission  were  challenged  by  the  Developer  by  filing

aforementioned  First  Appeals  in  the  National  Commission  which  were

disposed  of  by  the  National  Commission  vide  its  common  order  dated

07.09.2018.  The National Commission affirmed the view taken by the State

Commission and dismissed all the appeals.  Aggrieved thereby the present

appeals by special leave were filed by the Developer.

Re:  Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26519 of 2018 (Ravi Datt Aggarwal and others v. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and others  3   

5. While  the  appeals  as  aforesaid  were  pending  before  the  National

Commission, it was submitted by the Developer that there had to be at least

one Judicial Member on the Bench and in cases where there was not even one

Judicial Member on the Bench, the appeals could not and ought not to be

proceeded with.  After hearing all submissions, the National Commission by

its  order  dated  01.08.2018  reserved  the  matters  for  orders.   Thereafter,

Review  Petitions  were  filed  by  the  Developer  which  were  rejected  on

08.08.2018.  The Developer then filed a petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution  being  CM(M)No.951  of  2018  in  the  High  Court  of  Delhi

questioning  said  orders  dated  01.08.2018  and  08.08.2018.  While  issuing

3  Appeals by original Complainants

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 OF 2019) DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR VS. SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

                                      5

notice, the High Court by its order dated 20.08.2018 stayed the operation of

the order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the National Commission.  The National

Commission, thereafter, passed a reasoned judgment on 07.09.2018 rejecting

all  the  submissions.   However,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  order  dated

08.08.2018 was stayed by the High Court, it observed that the operation of the

Judgment dated 07.09.2018 would remain stayed till  further orders  by the

High Court.

6. Some of the Complainants, being aggrieved, approached this Court by

filing Special  Leave Petition (c)No.26519 of 2018 in which, while issuing

notice  on  22.10.2018,  this  Court  stayed  the  operation  of  the  order  dated

20.08.2018 passed by the High Court.  

7. Thereafter,  the  appeals  filed  by the  Developer  and  the  Complainants

were taken-up together.

8. It may be mentioned that matters where the Developer had challenged

similar  directions issued in  other  cases  namely  Civil  Appeal  Nos.  11097-

11138 of 2018, were disposed of by this Court on 19.11.2018.  In those cases,

(Himanshu Arora case, for short) the State Commission had awarded interest

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 OF 2019) DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR VS. SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

                                      6

@ 12% which was reduced by the National Commission to 9%.  After hearing

learned counsel for both sides, this Court had passed following directions: -

“8. Having  regard  to  the  above  submission,  we indicated to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the flat purchasers that it would be appropriate if the interest  as  ordered by NCDRC at  9% per  annum is made payable over the period which was determined by the Order of the SCDRC.  There is no objection by the flat purchasers to the aforesaid modification being made.  Even otherwise, we are of the view that such a modification  would  be  required  in  the  interests  of justice since it was the appellants who had questioned the Order of the SCDRC before the NCDRC.

9. In the above facts and circumstances, we confirm the direction of the NCDRC that the appellants shall pay interest @ 9 per cent per annum.  However, the period over which interest shall be payable will be in conformity with the order passed by the SCDRC.

10. We  also  direct  that  in  computing  the  interest payable in terms of the Order of the NCDRC to the extent modified above, the appellants would be entitled to credit for the compensation, if any, which has been paid to any flat buyer in terms of Clause 15 of the flat purchase agreements.  In other words, the amount of interest payable shall be computed after deducting any amount that has been paid to the concerned flat buyer under Clause 15 of the agreement.

11. The amount which has been deposited in this Court in  pursuance  of  the  order  dated  18.5.2018,  shall  be transferred  by  the  Registry  to  the  Registrar  of  the SCDRC, Chandigarh.   The appellants shall,  within a period  of  two  weeks  from  today,  file  a  detailed computation with reference to each of the flat buyers and the amount which is due and payable in pursuance

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 OF 2019) DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR VS. SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

                                      7

of  the  above  directions.   The  amount  shall  be  duly verified before  disbursal,  on proper  identification,  to each of the flat  buyers.  After  completing the above exercise, in the event, that any amount (inclusive of the accrued interest) remains surplus, it shall be refunded to the appellants.

12. Upon the transfer of the amount, the SCDRC shall keep the amount in a short term fixed deposit until the stage of disbursement is reached.

The civil appeals are disposed of.”

9. When the present appeals were taken up, all the parties agreed that these

appeals be disposed of in terms with the directions issued by this Court in

Himanshu Arora’s case.  We, therefore, directed the Developer to file a Chart

in  consultation with  all  the  complainants  and  indicate  what  modalities  be

adopted.   After  such  Chart  was  filed,  it  was  agreed  that  wherever

compensation was to be awarded, it should be in the form of interest @ 9%

and the governing principles be as under:-

(a) In all Refund cases, the award of interest @ 9% would be payable in

respect of deposits from the day they were made till the date of refund.

(b) In cases where, upon transfer, a subsequent purchaser had stepped

into the shoes of the original allottee and had prayed for Refund, the

reckoning date for computing the interest be from the date of his transfer

in respect of all the amounts that were deposited by the original allottee

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 OF 2019) DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR VS. SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

                                      8

and if any subsequent deposits were made by the transferee, from the

dates of such deposits;

(c)  In cases where Possession was sought, the period available to the

Developer under the agreement being three years (that is to say original

period  of  two  years  which  was  extendable,  at  the  option  of  the

Developer,  by  further  period of  one year)  ought  not  to  be  computed

while calculating compensation in the form of interest.  Therefore, the

period to be reckoned shall be after expiry of three years from the date of

agreement and in respect of such period the compensation shall be at the

same rate of 9%.

(d)  In Possession cases, if there was any transfer and the transferee had

stepped into the shoes of the original allottee, the compensation shall be

paid  from  the  date  of  expiry  of  three  years  from  the  agreement  as

aforesaid or from the date of transfer, whichever is later.

10. The matter was, thereafter, adjourned so that the parties could check and

reconcile  all  the  concerned  amounts  and  present  a  mutually  acceptable

statement of figures.   Accordingly, the Chart  has been presented which is

appended to this Judgment as Annexure-A.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 OF 2019) DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR VS. SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

                                      9

11. Column No.13 of the tabulated chart denotes element of interest @ 9%

while  Column  No.16  denotes  the  amount  that  had  been  received  by  the

Developer.  Column  No.14  shows  the  amounts  of  FDRs  deposited  by  the

Developer  in  respect  of  every  Complainant,  while  Column  No.17  shows

amount payable to every Complainant or recoverable from such Complainant

wherever excess amount was deposited.  According to the Chart, Serial Nos.1

to 17 are Refund cases where Possession was not prayed for.  Out of these 17

cases,  those at  serial  nos. 9 and 16 were already settled and as such their

cases4 shall not form part of this group of appeals.  Case at serial no.17 was a

transfer case in the category of Refund cases and as such would be governed

by principle (b) as stated hereabove.  Rest of the cases in the Refund category

will  be  governed  by  principle  (a)  stated  hereinabove  except  the  case  of

Colonel Naresh Kumar Kohli, whose name is at Serial No.14 which will be

subject to modification as stated hereafter.  

12. According  to  Colonel  Kohli,  the  fact  that  he  had  deposited

Rs.62,04,014/-  was  not  disputed  at  any  juncture  either  before  the  State

Commission or the National Commission and in fact FDR in that sum already

stood  deposited  by  the  Developer.   However,  in  his  case  Column No.16

wrongly mentioned figure  of  Rs.60,54,812/-  and consequently  the  amount

4  SLP (C) No.931 and 939 of 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 OF 2019) DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR VS. SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

                                      10

payable in Column No.17 was wrongly shown as Rs.24,60,356/-.  We heard

learned counsel for the Developer and Colonel Kohli on this issue and find

that  the  submission  made  by  Colonel  Kohli  deserves  acceptance.   We,

therefore, correct the figures in Column Nos.16 and 17 to be Rs.62,04,014/-

and Rs.26,09,558/- respectively.   He shall  be entitled,  over and above the

amount deposited in FD namely Rs.62,04,014/-, an amount of Rs.26,09,558/-

as well.

13. We now turn to Possession cases which are tabulated from serial nos.

18 to 48 (except case at serial no. 32). Let the case of Mr. Gautam Kashyup

at Serial  No.32, namely Special  Leave Petition (Civil)No. 968 of 2019 be

listed before a regular Court.  All other matters in Possession category stand

disposed of in terms of the directions (c) and (d) as issued above.   

14. Except  to  the  extent  any  exception  or  modification  stated  in  this

Judgment every person in Refund and Possession categories is aggregable to

the disposal of their matters in terms of the understanding as above and the

governing principles set out earlier.

15. It  is  directed  that,  on  the  strength  of  this  order  and  upon  proper

identification  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  State  Commission,  the  amounts

standing in Fixed Deposit Receipts against each of the Complainant along

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 OF 2019) DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR VS. SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

                                      11

with interest, if any, accrued thereon be made over to said complainant within

six weeks from today.  We also direct the Developer to make over to each

complainant  the  amount  in  Column  No.17  marked  as  “Amount

Recoverable/Payable” within six weeks.  In two cases i.e. in appeals arising

out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)Nos.928 of 2019 and 936 of 2019 where

the excess amount has been deposited, the Developer will be entitled to have

such excess amount recovered from the amounts presently lying in deposit.

16. In respect of the matter at serial No.8 relating to original allottee named

Arun Yadav, certain additional directions are called for.  Said original allottee

is no more.  While making the booking he had mentioned the name of his

wife as a nominee.  He has left behind his widow, two children and mother.

The widow and the mother are individually claiming refund of the amount

deposited by him.  At this stage, the entitlement of either side cannot be gone

into and the parties must be left to agitate this issue in a properly instituted

matter  before  a  competent  court.   However,  considering  the  fact  that  the

mother, the widow and two children, going by normal law relating to intestate

succession  for  Hindus,  would  share  the  property  of  the  deceased  person

equally, we direct ¾ of the sum to be made over to the widow who shall take

said sum for herself and on behalf of two children while the remaining ¼ of

the  sum shall  be  made over  to  the  mother.   They must  however  execute

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2285-2330 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NOS.928-930, 932-938, 940-967 and 969-976 OF 2019) DLF HOMES PANCHKULA (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHIV KUMAR VS. SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

                                      12

indemnity bonds agreeing to return the sum that they had received in whole or

in part, in case a declaration as to their entitlement by a competent court were

to go against them.

17. Since, the matters are being disposed of on an agreed understanding

and  since  no  order  of  compensation  was  passed  in  Himanshu  Arora,  no

compensation other than what has been dealt with earlier, need be paid to the

Complainants.

18. Finally, we direct:-

(a) SLP(C) Nos.931 and 939 of 2019 stand disposed of as having been settled by the parties.

(b)  SLP(C)  No.968  of  2019  be  listed  for  consideration  before appropriate Bench in due course.

(c)  All the appeals stand disposed of in terms indicated above. (d)  No costs.  

………..…..……..……J.                                                                                (Uday Umesh Lalit)

..………….……………J.                                 (Hemant Gupta)

New Delhi, February 26, 2019.