New Delhi, Nov 2 (IANS): In a relief for consumers hassled by delayed projects, the Supreme Court on Monday affirmed that a consumer court is empowered to order compensation if there is delay in giving possession.

A bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and Vineet Saran said: "We reject all the submissions advanced by the appellant (Imperia Structures Ltd.). These appeals are accordingly dismissed, affirming the view taken by the Commission (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)."

The case was regarding a housing scheme in Sector 13C in Gurugram, which was launched by Imperia Structures sometime in 2011 and all the original complainants booked their respective apartments by paying the booking amounts and thereafter each of them executed a builder buyer agreement with the firm. The complainants paid Rs 6353,625 out of the agreed sum of Rs 76,43,000, yet, even after four years, there were no signs of the project getting completed. In these circumstances, the complainants moved the Commission in 2017.

The Commission granted relief of refund of the amounts deposited by each of the complainants with simple interest of 9 percent per annum along with Rs 50,000 towards costs. It also directed that the amounts be deposited within four weeks, failing which the amounts would carry interest of 12 percent per annum.

The apex court observed that the stand taken by the appellant at various stages, itself acknowledged that there was delay. "In our view, the conclusions drawn by the National Commission in relation to these issues are absolutely correct and do not call for any interference," it noted.

The top court said the proceedings initiated by the complainants in the present cases and the resultant actions, including the orders passed by the Commission, are fully saved. "The entitlement of the complainants must be considered in the light of the terms of the Builder Buyer Agreements and was rightly dealt with by the Commission," said the bench.

Imperia Structures' counsel had argued that once the RERA Act came into force, all questions concerning the project, including issues relating to construction and completion thereof, would be under the exclusive control and jurisdiction of the authorities under it.

"The Commission, therefore, ought not to have entertained the consumer cases. The Registration Certificate, dated November 17, 2017, being valid up to December 31, 2020, the appellant could not be said to have delayed the construction and consequently, there could be no finding that there was deficiency on part of the appellant," counsel argued.

The court, however, observed the apartments were booked by the complainants in 2011-2012 and the Builder Buyer Agreements were entered into in November 2013 and the construction should have been completed in 42 months.

"The period had expired well before the project was registered under the provisions of the RERA Act. Merely because the registration under the RERA Act is valid till December 31, 2020 does not mean that the entitlement of the concerned allottees to maintain an action stands deferred. It is relevant to note that even for the purposes of Section 18, the period has to be reckoned in terms of the agreement and not the registration," said the bench.

In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment duly completed by the date specified in the agreement, the promoter would be liable, on demand, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project.

"All the complainants are entitled to execute the orders passed by the Commission in their favour, in accordance with law," the court held