9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1445 - SC - Indian LawsDoctrine of merger and doctrine of res-judicata versus Law of precedents - Refund to Himanshu Dewan Sonali Dewan and Ors, the amount collected towards excess sale area, and to execute supplementary correction deeds within six weeks from the date of the order - seeking a refund of the amounts paid by them towards the increased sale area alleging, inter alia, that there was neither increase in the carpet area nor in the built-up area, and that the demand towards increase in the sale area made by the Appellant was illegal - Arising of cause of action - HELD THAT - The Appellant, as per the contractual terms, is well within their right to ask for enhanced sale consideration on increase in the sale area as defined. The Respondents have not questioned and challenged this right of the Appellant. They have challenged the computation and calculations. The Respondents have the right to ask for calculations and details, when the Appellant had stated that the sale area had increased. On being satisfied with the calculation, the Respondents could have accepted the increase in the sale area, if the same was in accordance with the agreement. The 'cause of action' arose when the Appellant insisted and compelled the Respondents/allottees to make payment, but did not furnish the details and particulars to enable the Respondents/allottees to ascertain the actual allocated sale area - In the context of the present case, it is an accepted position that the sale deeds were executed with the Respondents between the period from 13.04.2018 to as late as 09.01.2020. In view of the aforesaid, the complaints filed by the Respondents cannot be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation Under Section 69 of the Act. Similar issues had arisen before this Court in ARIFUR RAHMAN KHAN AND ORS. VERSUS DLF SOUTHERN HOMES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. 2020 (8) TMI 852 - SUPREME COURT . This Court accepted the argument by the consumers that execution of a deed of conveyance by a flat buyer would not preclude a consumer claim for compensation for delayed possession in a case where the allottees were not given an option, but were rather told that the possession would not be given and the conveyance deed would not be executed without the acceptance of the offer of possession terms. The dismissal of the appeal in the case of PAWAN GUPTA VERSUS EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVT LTD DELHI 2020 (8) TMI 940 - NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI without any reasons being recorded would not attract Article 141 of the Constitution of India as no law was declared by the Supreme Court, which will have a binding effect on all courts and tribunals in India. There is a clear distinction between the binding law of precedents in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of merger and res judicata. The order of this Court dismissing the appeal in the case of Pawan Gupta cannot be read as a precedent and applied to the cases in hand. In fact, precedents cannot decide questions of fact. The decision in the case of Pawan Gupta was based on evidence adduced by the Appellant/builder/developer, which in the said case was not found to be sufficient and cogent to justify and substantiate the demand raised in view of the increased sale area. No doubt, the architect's certificate and report dated 23.09.2020 was filed before this Court as additional documents, but a non-reasoned order passed by this Court dismissing the case cannot be read as accepting and considering the additional evidence, or as rejecting justification and reasons given therein for claiming additional/increased sale area - the order passed by this Court dismissing the appeal in the case of Pawan Gupta is confined to the facts of the said case, including the evidence led by the parties before the National Commission. The National Commission was therefore required to consider and examine the contentions of the Appellant and not overrule the same on the grounds of the principle of res judicata and on the Rule of binding precedent, which do not apply. An order of remand on the question of merits as to the stipulation and increase in the sale area is therefore required. The impugned order and judgment passed by the National Commission is set aside and the appeal is disposed of with a direction of remand in terms of the observations and directions given herein.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of Amount Collected Towards Excess Sale Area 2. Limitation Period for Filing Consumer Complaint 3. Acquiescence and Estoppel 4. Binding Precedent and Doctrine of Merger Summary: 1. Refund of Amount Collected Towards Excess Sale Area The Appellant, M/s. Experion Developers Private Limited, was directed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) to refund the amount collected for the excess sale area and to execute supplementary correction deeds. The Appellant argued that the demand for increased sale area was valid as per Clause 8 of the "Apartment Buyer Agreement," which allows for a maximum of 10% variation in the sale area. The Respondents contended that there was no actual increase in the carpet or built-up area and relied on a previous decision in Pawan Gupta v. Experion Developers Private Limited. 2. Limitation Period for Filing Consumer Complaint The Appellant challenged the maintainability of the consumer case on the grounds of limitation, arguing that the 'cause of action' arose on 27.04.2017, and the complaint filed on 25.02.2022 was beyond the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Respondents argued that the limitation period was suspended due to the Covid pandemic, as per directions in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, making their complaint within the limitation period. 3. Acquiescence and Estoppel The Appellant argued that the Respondents were estopped from claiming a refund as they had made payments towards the increased sale area without protest and had executed conveyance deeds. The Supreme Court referenced Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana v. DLF Southern Homes Private Limited, which held that execution of a conveyance deed does not preclude a consumer claim for compensation. The Court remanded the issue to the National Commission for further examination. 4. Binding Precedent and Doctrine of Merger The Appellant contended that the National Commission's decision in Pawan Gupta's case should not be binding as it was fact-specific and not a representative case. The Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal of the appeal in Pawan Gupta's case without reasons does not attract Article 141 of the Constitution and does not operate as a binding precedent. The Court held that the National Commission should have considered the Appellant's additional documents and evidence submitted in the current case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the National Commission's order and remanded the case for a fresh examination of the issues, specifically on the merits of the increase in the sale area and the principles of acquiescence and estoppel. The observations on the limitation issue were held to be final.
|
