The Supreme Court has directed real estate firm Business Park Town Planners Ltd. to refund more than ₹43 lakh to a homebuyer along with 18% annual interest, enhancing the compensation awarded earlier by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih partly allowed the appeal of buyer Rajnish Sharma, who had alleged undue delay, unfair charges, and harassment over a plot he booked in 2006.
The NCDRC had in January 2023 ordered the builder to refund the principal amount of ₹43.13 lakh with 9% annual interest and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs. However, the Supreme Court found this inadequate given the conduct of the builder.
Justice Datta, writing the judgment, observed:
“Keeping in mind the overall conduct of the respondent: the delay caused in offering the plot, the fact that the respondent charged the appellant delay compensation at 18% per annum, and the long wait of over a decade endured by the appellant, refund with 9% interest will not serve the ends of justice.”
The bench noted that while the builder imposed 18% interest on buyers for delayed payments, it sought to limit its own liability to a mere 9%. “Equity and fairness demand that the respondent be put to the same rigours,” the court ruled.
- 2006: Sharma booked a plot in the “Park Land” project for ₹36.03 lakh, paying an upfront amount of ₹7.86 lakh.
- 2007: An agreement was signed, with the builder bound to deliver possession within 24 months of service plan approvals. The contract also imposed 18% annual penalty on buyers for late payments.
- 2011: Despite Sharma having paid nearly ₹29 lakh, the builder offered an alternative plot citing layout changes and demanded an additional ₹2.30 lakh.
- 2015: Total payments made by Sharma reached ₹43.13 lakh, yet no possession was given. The builder instead charged him 18% interest for alleged delays in payment.
- 2017: Sharma terminated the agreement and sought a refund.
- 2018: He approached the NCDRC.
- 2023: The NCDRC ordered refund with 9% interest, which Sharma challenged.
Enhancing the relief, the apex court directed the builder to refund the entire amount paid by Sharma with 18% interest, holding that anything less would perpetuate a “manifestly wrong bargain.”
