A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 2(1)(o) – Apartment/ Flat developer -- Deficiency in service -- Failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency -- Expression “service” in Section 2 (1) (o) means a service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction.

(Para 24)

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 14(1)(e) – Apartment/ Flat developer – Unfair bargain -- Power of Consumer Courts -- Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation -- These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation -- There has been a gross delay in the handing over of possession beyond the contractually stipulated debt -- Jurisdiction of the consumer forum to award just and reasonable compensation as an incident of its power to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is not constrained by the terms of a rate which is prescribed in an unfair bargain.

(Para 24)

C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 12 – Compensation for delayed possession – Execution of conveyance deed and handing over possession – Effect of -- Developer has undertaken to provide a service in the nature of developing residential flats with certain amenities and remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora – Court did not subscribe the view of the NCDRC that flat purchasers who obtained possession or executed Deeds of Conveyance have lost their right to make a claim for compensation for the delayed handing over of the flats.

(Para 36)

D. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 12 – Delay in possession -- Re-sale of apartment by allottee – Subsequent buyer – Rights of -- Appellants transferred their title, right and interest in the apartments would not be entitled to the benefit since they have sold their interest in the apartments to third parties -- It cannot be said that the subsequent transferees suffered any agony and harassment comparable to that of the first buyers, as a result of the delay in the delivery of possession in order to be entitled to compensation.

(Para 38)

E. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 12 – Purchase of Apartment/ Flat -- Amenities -- Flat purchasers cannot be left in the lurch or be told that the absence of facilities which were to be provided by the developer is compensated by other amenities which are available in the area -- Developer must be held accountable to its representation -- Representation held out by the developer cannot be dismissed as chaff -- Difficult for the court to quantify the exact nature of the compensation that should be provided to the flat buyers -- Difficulties in determining the measure of compensation cannot however dilute the liability to pay -- A developer should be held accountable to the process of law -- To allow the developer to escape their obligation would put a premium on false assurances and representations made to the flat purchasers -- Dismissal of the complaint by the NCDRC was erroneous.

(Para 43-55)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 2, 21 -- Insurance of hypothecated securities by Bank – Part of hypothecated securities left out from coverage -- Deficiency in service – If the bank had exercised liberty to effect insurance, it was their duty to take out policies covering the entire set of hypothecated assets -- Effecting insurance was not their absolute obligation -- But such obligation they had taken it upon themselves -- Commission was right in holding that the complainant had suffered loss because of inaction and negligence on the part of the Bank -- This constituted deficiency in service -- Any loss arising out of such deficiency was compensable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Para 14,15)

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 12 – Deficiency in service – Loss in transit -- Burdon of proof -- Mere assertion that the loss incurred during the course of transit is not sufficient -- Burden of proof lies on the Complainant to show that the loss incurred was covered within the terms of the policy and that on a balance of probabilities there existed a proximate cause between the loss incurred and the helicopter being in transit -- No proximate cause has been shown between the damage to the helicopter and the helicopter being in a state of transit -- Hence, it is difficult for this Court to come to the conclusion that the damage to the helicopter incurred during the course of transit.

(Para 36-38)

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 12 – Interpretation of Insurance contract -- While construing a contract of insurance, it is not permissible for a court to substitute the terms of the contract -- Court should always interpret the words used in a contract in a manner that will best express the intention of the parties.

(Para 39)

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 13(2)(a)(b) – Service of summons without complaint – Written statement – Non-receipt of complaint with summons – Objection of -- Objection of not having received a copy of the complaint along with the notice should be raised on the first date itself and not thereafter, otherwise if permitted to be raised at any point later would defeat the very purpose of the Act, which is to provide simple and speedy redressal of consumer disputes. Judgment to operate prospectively.

(Para 40)

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 13 – Written statement by opposite party – Extension of time – Power of District Forum -- District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act -- Judgment to operate prospectively. Referred questions answered.

(Para 41)

C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 13 – Written statement by opposite party – Commencing date -- Commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint -- Judgment to operate prospectively. Referred questions answered.

(Para 41)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 23 -- Delay in possession -- Breach of the Development Agreement is attributable to both, CHB and the Developer, the failure to hand over possession of the flat to the buyer cannot be said to be on account of the non-performance of the obligation of the Developer alone – Sale proceeds from the flat buyers were apportioned in the ratio of 70:30 between the Developer and CHB – Amount directed to be paid by the National Commission in the impugned order must be paid by the Developer and CHB in the ratio of 70:30 -- Developer and CHB to pay the principal sum of Rs. 1,03,31,250/- with interest at 10% p.a. to the Complainant -- Direction to pay Rs. 2 lakhs in toto towards mental harassment and litigation costs in the ratio of 70:30 between the Developer and CHB, is also held to be correct.

(Para 2, 10-15)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Delay in possession – Compensation for -- Respondents/complainants had paid 85% of the total agreed consideration, together with the agreement to sell, and even the balance at the time of the sale deed -- Having paid the consideration, it was evidently not in their interest to delay the receipt of possession -- Agreement provides Rs.5/- per sq.mt for delay upto 6 months – Agreement did not make any provision for delay thereafter – Consequently, the appellant would be liable to pay reasonable compensation to the respondents for the period in addition to the contractual payment due -- Compensation @ Rs.5/- per Square ft. in terms of agreement clause as well as Interest @ 6% p.a. (lump sum of Rs.10 lakhs) for other than contractual payment due awarded.

(Para 11-14)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 12 -- UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad-Registration and Allotment of Plots and Houses Rules, 1979, Rule 15, 30 -- Registration for flat – Allotment of flat – Right of --  Clause 5 of the Registration Booklet indicates that mere registration does not confer a right for allotment -- Rule 15 to the effect that the Board is not bound to allot a house or plot to every registered holder -- Rule 30 indicates that after the Board advertises the availability of a scheme in the newspaper, every registered applicant is at liberty to submit a consent letter for participation in the draw of lots – Applicant must show readiness and willingness to participate in a draw of lots in respect of a specified scheme – After depositing Rs.500/- in 1982 and Rs.500/- in 1985, the respondent did not pursue any remedies until 1993 – NCDRC directed the appellant to allot a flat to respondent for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- -- Held, respondent/consumer had no vested right to seek an allotment -- Appellant, as a public authority, could not have been compelled to enter into a contract with the respondent -- There was no contractual entitlement of the respondent/consumer to the allotment of a flat much less for an allotment at a specified price – NCDRC adopted a view which is contrary to the basic principle of contract governing the law of subject – Impugned order of the NCDRC set aside.

(Para 15-16)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer – Booking of 4 flats – Fact that an individual has booked four flats may not by itself be a circumstance on the basis of which a conclusive presumption can be drawn that he or she is not a consumer in the absence of evidence regarding the purpose of the purchase -- Ultimately, it is a matter to be decided on the basis of evidence whether, as the appellant pleads, the flats were booked not for the purposes of resale, but for the members of his family -- Absent such an exercise, the decision of the NCDRC rests purely on assumption or surmise – Impugned order set aside, Consumer Complaint restored.

(Para 8-10)

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 23 -- Purchase of flat – Unfair terms and conditions – Effect of -- Terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent/ Flat Purchaser – Appellant/ Builder could not seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.

(Para 7)

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 23 -- Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, Rule 15 -- Delayed possession of flat – Refund with interest – Right of Flat purchaser –Appellant/ Builder failed in obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent/ Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter – Respondent/ Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired – Respondent/ Flat Purchaser held entitled for refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest – National Commission rightly awarded Interest @10.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each installment till 05.02.2017 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest -- Civil Appeals dismissed, and the Final Judgment and Order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed.

(Para 8-10)