/2022 INSC 0727/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5208 OF 2022
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11938 of 2021)
M/S SIDDHYVINAYAK INFRASTRUCTURE  ….APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
KAMALAKAR JAYANT SRIVASTAVA & ANR. ….RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. The   respondents,   although   served   with   the   notice   issued   by
this Court, yet have chosen not to remain present before this Court
either in person or through an advocate and oppose this appeal.
2. This   appeal   is   at   the   instance   of   the   original   complainant
before   the   District   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Forum,   Nagpur
(for short, ‘the District Forum’) and is directed against the judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal
Commission,   New   Delhi   (for   short,   ‘the   National   Consumer
1

Commission)   dated   12 th
  December,   2019   in   the   Revision   Petition
No.   1185   of   2015   by   which   the   National   Consumer   Commission
disposed   of   the   Revision   Petition   filed   by   the   appellant   herein
against the order passed by the District Forum, Nagpur.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The   respondent   no.   1   herein   is   the   Original   Complainant.   He
lodged   a   complaint   under   Section   12   of   the   Consumer   Protection
Act,   1986   before   the   District   Forum   at   Nagpur   which   came   to   be
registered as the Consumer Complaint No. 305 of 2008.
4. The   case   of   the   respondent   no.   1   before   the   District   Forum
was   that   the   complainant   and   the   appellant   herein   entered   into   a
contract   in   connection   with   the   purchase   of   a   Twin   Bungalow
admeasuring  900 sq. ft. of super built up area situated at the Plot
No. 132 at Tahsil and District ­ Nagpur. 
5. It   appears   from   the   materials   on   record   that   the   appellant
herein   is   a   developer.   The   complainant   entered   into   an   agreement
dated 08.06.2006 with the appellant herein for the purchase of the
bungalow   in   question   for   a   total   sale   consideration   of   Rs.
9,74,000/­ (Rupees Nine Lakh Seventy Four Thousand only).
2

6. The   understanding   between   the   parties   was   that   the
complainant would pay an amount of Rs. 4,23,520/­ (Rupees Four
Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred Twenty only) in cash to
the   appellant   herein   and   the   balance   amount   of   Rs.   5,50,520/­
(Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Thousand Five Hundred Twenty only) would
be paid to the appellant herein after the complainant would get the
loan   disbursed   in   his   favour   from   the   respondent   no.   2,   the   bank
herein. 
7. It   appears   from   the   materials   on   record   that   the   bank
sanctioned   the   loan   of   Rs.   6,40,000/­   (Rupees   Six   Lakh   Forty
Thousand only) in favour of the complainant on 24.11.2006 but the
same   never   came   to   be   actually   disbursed   in   favour   of   the
complainant.
8. In   the   aforesaid   context,   disputes   cropped   up   between   the
parties. In such circumstances, the complainant thought fit to file a
complaint   before   the   District   Forum   at   Nagpur.   Before   the   District
Forum,   the   appellant   herein   admitted   that   it   had   entered   into   an
agreement   with   the   complainant   for   sale   of   the   house   in   question.
The   appellant   also   admitted   that   the   total   sale   consideration   as
fixed   was   at   Rs.   9,74,000/­   (Rupees   Nine   Lakh   Seventy   Four
3

Thousand   only).   However,   the   appellant   herein   disputed   having
received   an   amount   of   Rs.   4,23,520/­   (Rupees   Four   Lakh   Twenty
Three Thousand Five Hundred Twenty only) from the complainant.
9. The stance of the bank before the District Forum was that the
home   loan   of   Rs.   6,40,000/­   (Rupees   Six   Lakh   Forty   Thousand
only)   was   sanctioned   in   favour  of  the   complainant   and   his   wife   on
24.11.2006. The bank called upon the complainant and his wife to
submit   the   necessary   documents   regarding   the   property.   However,
the   relevant   documents   were   not   furnished   and,   in   such
circumstances, the loan amount could not be actually disbursed in
favour of the complainant and his wife.
10.   The   complaint   was   ultimately   adjudicated   by   the   District
Forum   and   the   same   came   to   be   partly   allowed   in   the   following
terms:
“1.  The complaint of the Complainant is partly allowed.
2.  The Non­application No. 1 is directed that he should
complete   the   construction   of   the   house   (semi­detached
bungalow)   having   a   built­up   area   of   900   Sq.   ft.   on   Plot
No. 132, P.H. No. 38, Khasra No. 39/1, 39/2 and  39/3
having total area of 2101 Sq. feet, in Ghogal Layout, as
per   the   agreement   and   hand   over   its   possession   to   the
Complainant and execute a Sale deed of the said house
in   favour   of   the   Complainant.   The   Complainant   should
bear   the   expenses   to   be   incurred   on   Sale   deed   of   the
said house.
4

3.  The   Non­applicant   No.   1   is   directed   that   he   should
give   the   sum   of   Rs.   30,000/­   to   the   Complainant   as
compensation towards physical and mental harassment
the   Complainant   suffered   on   account   of   failing   to
complete   the   construction   of   the   house   and   deliver   its
possession   and   on   account   of   adopting   an   unfair   trade
practice.
4. The Non­applicant No. 1 directed that he should give
to   the   Complainant   compensation   at   Rs.   300/­   in
accordance   with   Condition   No.   23   in   the   Agreement   to
Sell, from 01/01/2008 till receiving the possession of the
house.
5.  The   Non­applicant   No.   1   is   directed   that   he   should
give Rs. 5,000/­ to the Complainant towards cost of the
present complaint.
6.  The present complaint is dismissed against the Non­
application No. 2.
7. The   Non­applicant   No.   1   should   comply   with   the
above orders within a period of 30 days from the receipt
of the copy of order.”
Thus, from the aforesaid, it appears that the appellant herein
was directed by the District Forum to complete the construction of
the   Twin   Bungalow   in   accordance   with   the   agreement   and   hand
over   its   possession   to   the   complainant   upon   execution   of   the   sale
deed in accordance with the terms of the contract.
11. The   appellant   herein   being   dissatisfied   with   the   order   passed
by   the   District   Forum,   Nagpur   referred   to   above   challenged   the
same   before   the   National   Consumer   Commission,   New   Delhi   by
5

filing   the   Revision   Petition   No.   1185   of   2015.   The   National
Consumer   Commission   disposed   of   the   Revision   Petition   in   the
following terms:
  “ 5 . The Learned Counsel appearing for the Developer sub ­
mitted that the Agreement to Sell was entered into on 08­
06­2006 but the loan was sanctioned only on 24­11­2007
and for the fault of the Complainant, the Developer cannot
be   made   to   wait   indefinitely   and   that   the   State   Commis ­
sion has  erred in coming to the  conclusion that  there was
deficiency in service on behalf of the Developer.
6.              He also drew our attention to the order dated 30­06­
2015 passed by this Commission whereby the operation of
the   impugned   order   was   stayed   subject   to   the   Developer
depositing a sum of Rs.3,24,780/­ with interest at the rate
of   12%   per   annum   from   the   respective   dates   of   deposit.
Keeping in view that admittedly the Agreement to Sell was
entered   into   on   08­06­2006   and   the   loan   was   sanctioned
only   on   24­11­2007   and   two   notices   were   issued   by   the
Developer   on   21­07­2007   and   on   08­01­2008,   we   are   of
the considered view that the Complainant had failed to ad ­
here to the payment schedule as per the Agreement to Sell
and   did   not   pay   the   entire   amount   of   Rs.9,74,000/­.   We
find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel appear ­
ing for the Revision Petitioner that the Developer cannot be
made   to   obtain   the   loan   amount   from   the   Bank   and   it   is
the   practice   of   the   Bank   to   gather   all   the   relevant   docu ­
ments including salary certificate and Income Tax Returns
before using its discretion to disburse the loan. If the Com ­
plainant had failed to furnish any documents to the Bank
which delayed the sanctioning of the home loan, the Devel ­
oper cannot be made responsible. It is submitted that after
the   passing   of   the   impugned   order,   a   notification   was   is ­
sued   by   Collector,   Nagpur   on   03­02­2015   restraining   all
6

Sub­Registrars not to register the documents in absence of
the   permissions/sanctions   and,   therefore,   today   it   is   not
possible to comply with the directions issued by the State
Commission to register the sale deed.
7.               On   a   pointed   query   from   the   Bench   with   respect   to
the Occupation Certificate, the Learned Counsel for the Pe ­
titioner   submitted   that   earlier   the   apartment   was   under
the   territorial   jurisdiction   of   Gram   Panchayat   but   now   it
has   come   under   the   jurisdiction   of   Municipal   Corporation
and  getting the Occupation Certificate  of the  apartment  in
question will take  time  and in the absence of the  Occupa ­
tion   Certificate,   the   Sale   Deed   cannot   be   registered.   How ­
ever,   the   Learned   Counsel   for   the   Complainant/Respon ­
dent,   on   instructions   received,   submitted   that   the   Com ­
plainant/Respondent is prepared to take possession of the
apartment   in   question   and   the   Sale   Deed,   etc.,   be   regis ­
tered only after the Occupation Certificate is issued by the
competent   authority.   The   statement   given   by   the   Learned
Counsel   for   the   Respondent   appears   to   be   bonafide   and
would  serve  the  interests   of  justice,  we,  therefore,  modify
the orders of both the  fora below with the following direc ­
tions:
(i)             The  Petitioner shall provide the  peaceful and  vacant
possession   of   the   house   complete   in   all   respects   to   the
Complainant/Respondent No.1 within one month and exe ­
cute the Sale Deed after getting the Occupation Certificate
for which he will take immediate steps;
(ii)             the   Complainant   shall   pay  the   balance   sale   consid ­
eration   of   Rs.6,49,220/­   within   four   weeks   from   the   date
of receipt  of a copy of this  order directly to the  Developer.
Needless   to   add,   the   stamp   duty   and   taxes   due   and
payable shall be borne by the Complainant;
                   All the directions given by the District Forum and the
State   Commission   stand   modified   to   the   extent   indicated
7

above.   Any   deposit   made   by   the   Developer   in   compliance
of the order dated 30­06­2015 passed by this Commission
shall   stand   refunded   by   the   concerned   District   Forum
along with interest accrued to the Developer.”
Thus,   the   National   Consumer   Commission   directed   the
appellant herein to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of
the   house   complete   in   all   respects   to   the   complainant   within   one
month   from   the   date   of   the   order   and   execute   the   Sale   Deed   after
obtaining the Occupation Certificate.
12. However, while issuing such directions to the appellant herein,
the   National   Consumer   Commission   also   directed   the   complainant
to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,49,220/­ (Rupees Six
Lakh   Forty   Nine   Thousand   Two   Hundred   Twenty   only)   within   four
weeks from the date of receipt of the order directly to the appellant
herein.   The   National   Consumer   Commission   accordingly   modified
the order passed by the District Forum.
13.   The   appellant   being   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned   order
passed   by   the   National   Consumer   Commission   is   here   before   this
Court with the present appeal. 
14. We  have  heard Mr. Vinay  Navare, the learned Senior  Counsel
appearing for the appellant herein. We are of the view that it is not
8

necessary   for   us   to   adjudicate   the   legality   or   validity   of   the
impugned   order   passed   by   the   National   Consumer   Commission
having   regard   to   the   peculiar   facts   and   circumstances   of   the
present litigation.
15. It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   Agreement   for   Sale   was   entered
into on 08.06.2006. The loan came to be sanctioned by the bank on
24.11.2006.   It   appears   from   the   materials   on   record   and   also   as
pointed   out   by   the   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the
appellant   that   the   complainant   did   not   even   bother   to   go   to   the
bank  and   get   the   loan   amount   disbursed  in   his   favour.  Of   course,
the   case   of   the   complainant   as   it   appears   from   the   materials   on
record is that he was not able to get the loan amount disbursed in
his favour in the absence of documents which the appellant herein
failed to supply to the complainant. 
16. We   take   notice   of   the   fact   that   the   National   Consumer
Commission   had   stayed   the   order   passed   by   the   District   Forum
from   its   operation   pending   the   final   disposal   of   the   Revision
Application on the condition that the appellant herein deposits the
sum of Rs. 3,24,780/­ (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Four Thousand
Seven Hundred Eighty only) with interest at the rate of 12 per cent
9

per annum from the respective dates of deposit.
17. It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   aforesaid   amount   came   to   be
deposited   by   the   appellant.   We   are   of   the   view   that   the   ends   of
justice would be met if we direct the appellant herein to refund the
amount   of   Rs.   3,24,780/­   (Rupees   Three   Lakh   Twenty   Four
Thousand   Seven   Hundred   Eighty   only)   with   interest   at   the   rate   of
12 per cent per annum to the original complainant and put an end
to the entire litigation.
18. We   are   saying   as   aforesaid   keeping   in   mind,   the   following
relevant aspects of the matter:
a) The original agreement between the parties is of the year 2006.
b) In   accordance   with   the   terms   of   the   agreement   for   sale,   both
the parties were obliged to perform their part of the contract.
c) It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   complainant   failed   to   make   the
entire   payment   towards   the   purchase   of   the   bungalow   to   the
appellant herein in accordance with the terms of the contract.
d) Although,   the   loan   came   to   be   sanctioned   by   the   bank   in
November,   2006   yet   no   further   steps   were   taken   by   the
10

complainant   to   ensure   that   the   amount   sanctioned   by   the
bank is directly paid to the appellant herein.
e) Almost   16   years   have   elapsed   since   the   parties   entered   into
the contract.
f) We are of the view that it will be too much at this point of time
i.e.   after   a   period   of   almost   16   years   to   ask   the   appellant
herein   to   execute   the   sale   deed   by   accepting   the   balance
consideration   of   Rs.   6,49,220/­   (Rupees   Six   Lakh   Forty   Nine
Thousand Two Hundred Twenty only).
g) It appears that the complainant is also not interested in abid ­
ing   by   the   directions   issued   by   the   National   Consumer   Com ­
mission.
h) The   impugned   order   passed   by   the   National   Consumer   Com ­
mission is dated 12 th
  December, 2019. Till this date, the com ­
plainant has not come forward to pay the balance sale consid ­
eration   of   Rs.   6,49,220/­   (Rupees   Six   Lakh   Forty   Nine   Thou ­
sand Two Hundred Twenty only) to the appellant.
11

i) The   complainant   thought   fit   not   to   even   appear   before   this
Court and oppose this Appeal.
19. In   such   circumstances,   referred   to   above,   we   dispose   of
this appeal in the following terms:
(i) The   impugned   order   passed   by   the   National
Consumer Commission dated 12 th
  December, 2019
is hereby  modified to  the extent  that the  appellant
herein   shall   pay   the   amount   of   Rs.   3,24,780/­
(Rupees  Three   Lakh   Twenty   Four  Thousand  Seven
Hundred   Eighty   only)   to   the   original   complainant
with interest at the rate of 12 per  cent per annum
from   the   date   of   the   Agreement   for   Sale   i.e.
08.06.2006.
(ii) Once   the   aforesaid   amount   is   paid,   there   shall   be
no   further   liability   of   the   appellant   herein   in   any
respect   so   far   as   the   property   in   question   is
concerned.
(iii) The amount of Rs. 3,24,780/­ (Rupees Three Lakh
Twenty   Four   Thousand   Seven   Hundred   Eighty
only)   with   interest   at   the   rate   of   12   per   cent   per
12

annum   from   the   date   of   the   agreement   shall   be
paid   to   the   complainant   within   the   period   of   four
weeks from today.
20. As   the  amount   of  Rs.  3,24,780/­  (Rupees   Three   Lakh  Twenty
Four Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty only) with interest at the rate
of 12 per cent per annum has been deposited by the appellant with
the   National   Consumer   Commission   with   interest,   it   shall   be   open
to the appellant to seek refund of the same so as to pay the entire
amount to the complainant with the interest accrued upon it.
21. With   the   aforesaid,   this   appeal   stands   disposed   of   with   no
order as to costs.
22. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
  ……………………………………..J.
(DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD)
…………………………………….J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 12, 2022
13

14