Flat Buyer Wins Refund Claim With 18% Interest | SC

Case Details: Rajnesh Sharma vs. Business Park Town Planners Ltd. - [2025] 178 taxmann.com 644 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dipankar Datta & Augustine George Masih, JJ.
• Vivek Malik, Rajesh Kumar, Mrs Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Jns Tyagi, Vivek Sinha, Advs. & Gaurav Goel, AOR for the Appellant
• Kaushik Poddar, AOR & Akash Dalal, Adv. for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant booked a plot in a project of the respondent for a total sale consideration of Rs. 36 lakhs. As per the agreement, possession of the plot was to be handed over within 24 months of the sanction of the service plans of the entire colony. However, no offer for possession was made until year 2018.

Aggrieved by the respondent’s inaction in allotting the plot, the appellant terminated the agreement and sought a refund of Rs. 43 lakhs, along with interest at 24% per annum. Ultimately, the appellant lodged a consumer complaint before the NCDRC. As per the impugned order, the NCDRC directed the respondent to refund the entire principal amount, along with interest at 9% per annum.

It was noted that considering overall conduct of respondent, i.e., delay caused by it in offering plot, fact that respondent charged appellant delay compensation at 18 per cent p.a. on due amount, and long wait that appellant had to endure over a period of a decade, causing harassment and anxiety, which were writ large, refund of principal amount with interest at 9 per cent per annum, as awarded by NCDRC, would not serve ends of justice.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that since the respondent charged interest at 18 per cent on defaulted payments made by the appellant, equity and fairness demanded that the respondent be put to the same rigours for charging 18 per cent interest and face consequences similar to those imposed on the appellant for the default committed by him. Therefore, the rate of interest awarded by the NCDRC was to be substituted and increased from 9% to 18% per annum.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in CC-885-2018, dated 13-01-2023 (Para 22) partly allowed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 (para 5.1)
• Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima (2018) 5 SCC 442 (para 5.1)
• IREO Grace Realtech (P) Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna (2021) 3 SCC 241 (para 5.3)
• Vidya v. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. (2024) 9 SCC 651 (para 5.3)
• Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra (2020) 18 SCC 613 (para 5.3)
• Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India [2019] 108 taxmann.com 147/155 SCL 622 (SC) (para 5.3).