Case Title: Kolkata West International City Private Ltd. v. Devidas Rudra
The Supreme Court upheld the Consumer Commission's decision instructing the developer to reimburse the customer's money and stated that a buyer cannot be made to wait endlessly for possession.
In this instance, the customer paid the builder an amount of Rs 39,29,280 in 2006, and their agreement stated that the buyer would receive ownership of the Row House by December 31, 2008, with an additional six months of grace. In 2011, the buyer requested possession of the Row House from the consumer commission or, as an alternative, a return of the money paid to the developer, plus interest at a rate of 12% annually. A 20-lakh rupee compensation was also requested. The developer was ordered to repay the funds received together with an interest at a rate of 12% per year and pay compensation of Rs 5 lakhs after the State Commission found merit in the case. This order was altered by the National Commission, and it reduced the compensation to Rs. 2 lakhs from 5 lakhs.
The developer filed an appeal before the Apex court bench against the order of refund wherein the bench had to decide whether the buyer was permitted to request a refund or was barred from doing so because compensation was listed as the main form of relief in the consumer complaint.
The Bench observed that according to the provisions of the agreement, possession was to be handed over by December 31, 2008, with a grace period of six months. Even in 2011, when the buyer filed the complaint, he was prepared and eager to take ownership. To interpret the contract between the parties as compelling the buyer to wait perpetually for ownership would be clearly irrational. By 2016, the agreement had been in effect for almost seven years and even the developer claims that the completion certificate was obtained on March 29, 2016 after the extended period for the transfer of possession set forth in the contract. A reasonable amount of time can be expected from a buyer to wait for possession. Seven years is too long to be considered reasonable. Therefore, it would have been clearly unreasonable to reject the buyer's complaint based solely on the initial request for relief made to the SCDRC.
The bench believed that the SCDRC and NCDRC's directives for money refunds were appropriate given the current situation. Given all relevant facts and circumstances, the bench reduced the NCDRC's order by requiring the appellant to pay interest to the respondent at a rate of 9% annually as opposed to the NCDRC's original requirement of 12%.