The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in the case of M/s Suptertechv. RajniGoyal[Civil Appeal Nos. 6649-50 of 2018decided on 23.10.2018]has held that ‘purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession’. Consequently, while upholding compensation to a disgruntled home buyer, a bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra reduced the time period for computation of the amount, noting the delay on the part of the buyer in takingpossession.
The dispute concerned a project named ‘Capetown’ developed by a builder in Noida. A flat was allotted by the builder to one Ms. Rajni Goyal in May, 2012, with the allotment letter stating that possession would be handed over in October, 2013. Further, the allotment letter allowed extension upto a maximum period of 6 months due to unforeseen circumstances.However, the builder handed over a pre-possession letter to Ms. Goyal in October 2015, for completion of formalities, before possession could be handed over. With the pre-possession letter, she was called upon to pay Rs. 1,235,656/- towards the balance cost of the flat and several other charges. She, however, failed to pay the charges.
Ms. Goyal, then, after over 15 months, in March, 2017, filed a Consumer Complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“Commission”). She had challenged the pre-possession letter on the ground that on the date of issuance of the letter, the builder had not obtained the Occupancy Certificate. She had also challenged the various charges demanded by the builder in the letter.
Partly allowing the complaint, the Commission had approved payment of a few charges but had ordered payment of compensation to Ms. Goyal in view of delay in handing over of the possession of the flat. It had, therefore, directed the builder to pay compensation at the rate of 8% per annum from November, 2013 (after expiry of scheduled date of handing over possession) till the date possession was actually offered to Ms. Goyal.
When the matter came before the SC, it was observedby the SC that the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained by the builder in April 2016, and that Ms. Goyal could not have had any further grievance after that. Therefore, the SC directed the period of compensation to be computed from May, 2014 to April, 2016, despite the fact that she approached the Commission in March, 2017.