Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi
New Delhi, Jun 27: The Supreme Court has ruled that homebuyers can seek compensation for delayed possession of a flat even after accepting its possession, stating that receiving the property does not automatically end their right to claim damages.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and V Mohana set aside a 2016 order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had held that the buyer was no longer a consumer at the time of filing the complaint since he had already taken possession of the flat without protest.
The case was filed by a homebuyer who became a member of a cooperative group housing society in Delhi in January 2003 and was allotted a flat. He later approached the consumer forum alleging deficiency in service due to delay in handing over possession.
The Supreme Court observed that a claim for compensation arises from the period before actual delivery of possession.
“The subsequent receipt of possession cannot, by itself, extinguish the right of the allottee to seek adjudication of a claim for compensation for the alleged delay,” the court said in its June 4 order.
The apex court noted that the consumer complaint was admitted by the district forum and notice was issued to the society, which later sought referral of the dispute to arbitration. The district forum referred the matter to arbitration in 2009, a decision later upheld by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2013.
The NCDRC dismissed the buyer’s revision petition in 2016, following which he approached the Supreme Court.
The bench said the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing consumers with a simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy against defects in goods and deficiency in services.
It held that the presence of an arbitration clause in an agreement between parties cannot by itself prevent a consumer from approaching consumer forums.
“The existence of another forum or another mode of adjudication does not by itself exclude the jurisdiction of consumer fora,” the court observed.
The Supreme Court said the NCDRC failed to examine the main issue of whether the dispute was rightly referred to arbitration and instead dismissed the case on the ground that the buyer was no longer a consumer after receiving possession.
The bench said issues such as whether there was a delay, whether the delay was caused by the housing society, and whether possession was accepted unconditionally required detailed examination on merits.
“The consumer complaint has not been adjudicated on merits at any stage,” the court said, adding that neither the buyer’s compensation claim nor the society’s defence had been examined.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the NCDRC, state commission and district forum and restored the consumer complaint.
The matter has now been sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dwarka, for fresh consideration, with directions to decide the case preferably within one year.