In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that a party whose right to file a written statement has been forfeited cannot introduce its case indirectly through evidence or written submissions. The bench, comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar, delivered this verdict in the case of Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. vs. M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8176 of 2022).
Background:
The case originated from a consumer dispute where 46 appellants, along with respondent Nos. 2 to 6, filed a complaint against the respondent builder, S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited, alleging deficiency in service. The complainants had booked flats in the builder’s project ‘Fiesta Homes by SJR Prime’ but faced considerable delays in possession and construction deficiencies.
Key Legal Issues:
1. The scope of participation for a party whose right to file a written statement has been forfeited.
2. The method of calculating compensation for delayed possession of flats.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order on the calculation of compensation for delayed possession.
On the first issue, the court held: “In the absence of any specific provisions dealing with non-filing of written statements/forfeiture of the right to file a written statement, taking note of the general position as above, it can only be held that it should bar the opposite party in a proceeding before the Consumer Redressal Forums to bring in pleadings, indirectly to introduce its/his case and evidence to support such case.”
The court clarified that a party whose right to file a written statement is forfeited can still participate in proceedings and cross-examine witnesses but cannot introduce its case indirectly. Justice Ravikumar observed, “the defendant could only be allowed to argue the legal questions arising based on authorities and provisions of law as also regarding lapses or laches and the consequential non-admissibility or otherwise of evidence, let in by the appellants.”
Regarding compensation calculation, the court modified the NCDRC’s formula, directing that the liability of the developer to pay interest at 6% per annum shall be from September 2014 (the due date for possession as per the agreement) till the date on which the respective complainant-buyers are offered possession.
Also Read
The court upheld the NCDRC’s decision on other issues, including the refusal to refund car parking charges and legal fees for conveyance deeds.
Representation:
– For the Appellants: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate
– For the Respondents: Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
