Valuation Of Consumer Dispute Claims Is Determined By Aggregate Relief Sought Which Includes Compensation & Other Claims: SC
The Supreme Court has clarified that in consumer disputes, the value of the claim is determined not just by the amount deposited but by the aggregate relief sought, including compensation and other claims.
The Court was considering appeal filed against an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
A Bench of Justice Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale observed, “In consumer disputes, the value of the claim is determined not just by the amount deposited but by the aggregate relief sought, which includes compensation and other claims. Therefore, the NCDRC rightly held that it had the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and this Court affirms that finding.”
Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi represented the appellant, while AOR Sudhir Kulshreshtha appeared for the respondent.
The appellant had applied for an apartment under the Agra Development Authority’s (ADA) group housing project via a lottery system. A housing loan from LIC supported the payment for the apartment. However, the project faced delays as the construction was not completed and the apartment was, not ready for delivery of possession. The appellant instituted a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the ADA.
The NCDRC partially allowed the appellant’s claim, directing ADA to refund the amount deposited, excluding the non-judicial stamp paper. The appellant approached the Supreme Court, seeking interest from the date of deposit. ADA, on the other hand, challenged the complaint on grounds of limitation and jurisdiction, arguing that the complaint was barred by time and the amount in question was not within the pecuniary limit of the NCDRC.
The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC’s findings and rejected ADA’s argument on both limitation and jurisdiction. The Court noted that both the parties had contributed to delays at various stages.
Even though the complaint was filed well beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Bench explained that NCDRC “correctly applied Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which extend the limitation period where part payments or acknowledgments are made.”
“This Court concurs with the NCDRC's reasoning and affirms that the complaint was not barred by limitation. The ongoing interactions between the parties, including ADA's acceptance of part payment in 2019 and the reminders sent, effectively extended the limitation period under established legal principles,” the Court remarked.
The Court noted the appellant's argument that a valid offer of possession cannot be made without the completion certificate and firefighting clearance certificate. The Court explained that Section 4(5) of the UP Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010 and Section 19(10) of the RERA Act, 2016 mandated that a developer obtain these certificates before offering possession.
“Despite the appellant's repeated requests, ADA failed to produce these certificates, rendering its offer of possession incomplete and legally invalid,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “This Court deems it appropriate to provide a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs only) apart from what was awarded by the NCDRC. Therefore, apart from the refund of the entire amount deposited by the appellant @ 9% interest per annum from 11.07.2020 till the date of refund, the ADA is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs only) to the appellant.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 667)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi; Advocate Om Prakash; AOR Vikas Singh Jangra
Respondent: AOR Sudhir Kulshreshtha
