9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion "NCDRC". A Buyer's Agreement dated 2 July 2007 was entered into between the appellant and the respondent. The respondent paid an amount of Rs. 39,29,280 in 2006 in terms of a letter of allotment dated 20 September 2006. The agreement between the parties envisaged that the appellant would hand over possession of a Row House to the respondent by 31 December 2008 with a grace period of a further six months ending on 30 June 2009. The respondent filed a consumer complaint before the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission "SCDRC" in 2011 praying for possession of the Row House and in the alternative for the refund of the amount paid to the developer together with interest at 12% per annum. Compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this observation by the SCDRC is contrary to the record since before it, a specific offer of possession was made. It has been urged on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Supriya Bose, learned senior counsel that a consumer complaint was filed in the year 2011. At that stage, the appellant was bonafide ready and willing to accept possession. However, nearly seven years have elapsed after the extended date for the delivery of possession which expired on 30 June 2009. In spite of this, no offer of possession was forthcoming. Learned senior counsel submitted that the letter dated 22 March 2016 of the developer was conditional and despite the subsequent letter dated 11 April 2016, no formal offer of possession was ever made by the appellant. More ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was evidently one sided. For a default on the part of the buyer, interest at the rate of 18% was liable to be charged. However, a default on the part of the developer in handing over possession would make him liable to pay interest only at the savings bank rate prescribed by the SBI. There is merit in the submission which has been urged by the buyer that the agreement was one sided. The clause which has been extracted in the earlier part of this order will not preclude the right and remedy available to the buyer to claim reasonable interest or, as the case may be, compensation. The essential aspect of the case which is required to be analysed is whether the buyer was entitled to seek a refund or was estopped from doing so, having claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
