CASE TITLE: Venkataraman Krishnamurthy and Anr. v. Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd.
CASE NO: Civil Appeal No. 971 of 2023
DECIDED ON: 1.03.2024
QUORUM: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar
FACTS OF THE CASE
This Civil Appeal has been filed by the complainants aggrieved by the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The respondent company was constructing a building wherein the appellant wished to buy an apartment. Hence, the appellant and the company entered an Agreement to Sell on 29.11.2023. After that, a four bhk flat in ‘Lodha Evoq’ was allotted to the appellants. As mentioned in the contract’s payment schedule, the appellants were supposed to make payments in four instalments, and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of fit-outs. When the complaint was filed, it was undisputed that the appellants were up to date with their payments in accordance with the contract. The contract further mentioned that the respondent party was supposed to hand out the apartment on two occasions: one for fit-outs by 30.06.2016 and the second for the offer of possession of the apartment along with the issuance of the occupancy certificate. A grace period of one year was given to the company in case of failure to provide the apartment on the aforementioned date. The company failed to comply with the terms and conditions by not giving the apartment on an earlier date. Hence, the appellants approached the NCDRC, praying for a refund of the amount they paid with a compound interest of @18% p.a., as well as compensation for the litigation costs and mental distress caused.
The respondent party is hereinafter referred to as the ‘OP’.
The NCDRC passed the following judgement:
The NCDRC directed the OP to give the entire physical possession of the property to the complainants within three months from the date this order was passed.
Both parties must inspect the property in question together, and in case of any deficiencies, the same must be reversed within 30 days of the inspection. The OP shall inform the complainants in writing after making the necessary changes and give them 15 days to complete the required formalities to be fulfilled to possess the property. The OP can also demand maintenance costs, such as car parking, club membership, etc., from the complainants. If the OP deems it necessary, it can take an indemnity bond from the complainants to pay taxes the authorities may likely demand in the future.
The OP shall bear compensation for delay in property transfer at simple interest 6% p.a. Parties are to bear their litigation costs. If the complainants wish to seek a refund, the OP shall be informed in writing within 15 days of the order. The OP shall refund the money after deducting the deposit amount within two months of the request made by the complainants.
APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS
The appellants contended that the respondent company did not comply with the contractual terms since they failed to offer the property for fit-outs on the time and date mentioned in the agreement. The possession of the apartment was to be delivered to the appellants on 30.06.2016 or extended by the grace period of one year.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The respondents contended that they had already obtained the occupancy certificate required before the expiry of the grace period. They informed the same to the appellants via email and asked them to make balance payments for the final property transfer. However, the appellants did not respond to the mail; hence, the respondent did not breach the contract. Additionally, they contended that the appellants wanted to terminate the contract due to the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax. They only want to avoid tax.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Regulation 6(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The respondent company had obtained a ‘Part Occupancy Certificate’ from the Town & Country Planning Division of Mumbai instead of an Occupancy Certificate. The certificate was issued on the condition that the respondent company must finish the internal work before applying for a total occupancy certificate. The format was not in accordance with Regulation 6(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991. Moreover, the respondent company bypassed the date of offering the apartment for fit-outs. It directly offered possession of the apartment and could not even procure the full occupancy certificate, which cannot be overlooked as it is a severe breach of the terms of the contract. The appellants rightfully exercised their rights to terminate the contract and contended that they had not received any letter for the offer of property for fit-outs.
The NCDRC opined that the respondent company’s delay in issuing the flat was not unreasonable. But if the complainants still want to terminate the agreement and seek a refund, the respondent’s company shall return the amount they paid in full after reducing the deposit amount. Hence, it passed the aforementioned judgement. However, it cannot be contended that there was no delay in providing possession of the property since it can be deduced that the contract provided a full occupancy certificate. To this effect, the respondent party still has to issue an occupancy certificate.
The Supreme Court stated that when the parties enter into a contract outlining all the terms and conditions, they must abide by the same. If the contract provides for the actions to be taken in case of a breach, then such a method must be followed. If not, the complainants can legally enforce the same on the party at fault.
In the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain and another[1] relating to insurance documents, it was held that the court’s duty is limited to interpreting the documents rather than amending them. This changes the structure and substance of the contract; hereby, the court goes beyond its powers. Hence, however unreasonable the contract may be, it is not the court’s responsibility to make changes. The court must interpret the contract and apply the established terms and conditions. The same was reiterated in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation vs Diamond & Gem Development Corporation[2], Ltd. Shree Ambica Medical Stores vs Surat People’s Coop. Bank Ltd.[3] and GMR Warora Energy Ltd. vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission[4].
The court said that the respondent company could not argue because the appellants accepted their proposal of delayed apartment delivery. The appellants were informed about the delay on two separate occasions. However, their response still demanded that the occupancy certificate be uploaded to the website to obtain a loan. The appellants were scheduled to see the property/apartment in question on 14.06.2017, which was delayed to August 2017 or later. It is unknown when the appellants were given the ‘part occupancy certificate’, but it is undisputed that after the expiry of the grace period, the appellants immediately sought to terminate the agreement by providing notice to the respondent company in writing. The appellants rightfully followed the terms and conditions of the contract. The respondents cannot infer the communication between the parties before the expiry of the grace period as a green signal by the appellants. It is not suggestive of their acceptance when they were not even aware of the full facts of the situation then. The fact that the appellants wanted to complete all the formalities to avoid the Goods and Services Tax is not grounds for them to be held against. The court observed that the urgency shown by the appellants due to the introduction of GST was justified and natural. Avoidance of tax does not amount to evasion of tax.
The respondent company relied on the case of Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna[5] to pray for the reduction of interest rates. The court observed that the facts of this case do not apply to the current scenario. In this case, the contract provided that any delay after the expiry of the grace period shall allow the other party to terminate the contract and obtain a refund without any interest. Hence, in all fairness, the court ordered a refund with a 9% p.a. simple interest. In the instant matter, it has been explicitly laid down in the contract that an interest of 12% p.a. has to be paid along with the refund. Thus, the court does not hold the authority to amend the same.
The court further held that the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) exceeded its power and authority. The court not only amended the terms and conditions of the contract but also set out the discourse to be taken by both parties, especially the appellants. The appellant company wished to terminate the agreement despite the offer of possession made by the respondents on 29.07.2017. Accordingly, the court has directed the respondent company to refund the amount the appellants paid in twelve equal monthly instalments. Post-dated cheques and a simple interest of 12% p.a will be paid. The first instalment must be paid on the 5th of April and the remaining on the fifth of each month till it is fully repaid.
CONCLUSION
In this judgement, the court reversed the NCDRC’s order. This judgement is crucial for determining the duties and powers of the judges when dealing with contractual cases. The court referred to various judgements and reiterated that the court’s power is limited to understanding the contract and applying the terms and provisions to the facts presented. Even in cases wherein the contract is arbitrary, the court must not amend a valid contract. This judgment also serves as a reminder to the parties entering into contracts to carefully devise and review the terms and conditions of the contract since they cannot change the same unless expressly provided for in the contract. The parties must be aware that even the omission of a task mentioned in the contract shall lead to a breach enforceable by the aggrieved party.
Judgement analysis written by- Rashi Hora
[1] AIR 1966 SC 1644
[2] (2013) 5 SCC 470
[3] (2020) 13 SCC 564
[4] (2023) 10 SCC 401
[5] 5 (2021) 3 SCC 241
