/2022 INSC 0811/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6439 OF 2021
Sudha & Ors.                         …Appellants
        v.
Jaiprakash Associates Limited              ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. This   is   a   statutory   appeal   under   Section   23   of   the
Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986.   This   appeal   takes   exception
to   the   final   judgment   and   order   dated   29 th
  April   2021   of   the
National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   New
Delhi   (for   short,   ‘the   National   Commission’).   The   appellants
are the complainants before the National Commission. By the
impugned judgment and order, the National Commission has
dismissed their complaint.
2. It is necessary to set out relevant factual aspects which
are necessary for the disposal of the appeal.
1

3. The   third   appellant   is   a   member   of   the   Bar.   On   27 th
January 2013, the third appellant booked a two­bedroom flat
in   the   project   of   the   respondent­Company,   called   Garden
Isles.   According   to   the   case   of   the   appellants,   the
construction   of   the   flat   was   inordinately   delayed.   When   the
appellants   visited   the   office   of   the   respondent­Company   in
January   2015,   the   officials   of   the   respondent­Company
suggested   to   the   appellants   that   the   booking   of   the   said   flat
can   be   cancelled   and   the   appellants   can   book   an   apartment
in   Imperial   Court   –   Tower­1   in   the   project   known   as   Jaypee
Greens,   NOIDA.   The   officials   of   the   respondent­Company
suggested to the appellants that the amount of consideration
paid by  the third appellant while booking  the earlier  flat can
be   adjusted   towards   the   consideration   of   a   flat   in   Jaypee
Greens. The appellants accepted the suggestion. Accordingly,
an   allotment   letter   dated   11 th
  July   2015   was   issued   by   the
respondent­Company in the name of the appellants in respect
of   Unit   Reference   No.IMP0128A4,   having   an   approximate
covered   area   of   3072.48   sq.   ft.   (for   short,   ‘the   said
apartment’).   The   agreed   consideration   was   Rs.2,77,91,313/­
(Rupees   two   crore   seventy­seven   lakh   ninety­one   thousand
2

three   hundred   and   thirteen).   According   to   the   case   of   the
appellants,   the  possession   of   the  said   apartment   was  agreed
to be handed over to them within a period of 24 months from
the date of the allotment letter. 
4. The   case   of   the   appellants   is   that   they   were   granted   a
loan by ICICI Bank (for short, ‘the said Bank’). Apart from the
other   documents,   the   said   Bank   executed   Quadripartite
Agreement   dated   9 th
  December   2016.   The   appellants,   the
respondent­Company,   Jaypee   Infratech   Limited   (as   the
confirming party), and the said Bank were parties to the said
agreement. The agreement records that the loan amount shall
be   disbursed   by   the   said   Bank   directly   to   the   respondent­
Company,   which   will   be   adjusted   towards   the   consideration
payable   in   respect   of   the   said   apartment.   Accordingly,   the
consideration earlier paid by the third appellant in respect of
the   apartment   booked   in   the   Garden   Isles   project   was
transferred   towards   the   consideration   payable   in   respect   of
the   said   apartment   to   the   respondent­Company.   The
respondent­Company  addressed a letter  to the  appellants  on
24 th
  October   2016   stating   therein   that   the   said   apartment
3

was ready for pre­possession formalities and for handing over
the   possession   to   the   appellants.   In   the   said   letter,   the
respondent­Company   mentioned   that   the   completion
certificate   dated   20 th
  July   2016   has   been   issued   by   the
concerned authority. The letter recorded that though the area
of   the   apartment   mentioned   in   the   allotment   letter   was
3724.67   sq.   ft   of   super   area,   in   fact,   the   area   of   the   said
apartment has been increased by 3.98 sq. ft of super area. By
the   said   letter,   the   appellants   were   called   upon   to   deposit   a
sum   of   Rs.1,82,26,309.30.   The   respondent­Company,   by   the
said letter, called upon the appellants to make the payment of
the   said   amount   on   or   before   23 rd
  November   2016   and
complete   all   the   pre­possession   formalities,   which   would
enable   the   respondent­Company   to   carry   out   final   finishing
work   and   to   handover   possession   of   the   said   apartment
within   a   period   of   45   days   from   the   date   of   making   the
payment. Annexure­A to the said letter incorporated details of
the   pre­possession   formalities   required   to   be   completed   by
the   appellants   for   the   execution   of   the   sub­lease   deed   in
respect   of   the   said   apartment.   Annexure­B   to   the   said   letter
contained   the   description   of   four   car   parking   slots   reserved
4

for   the   appellants.   Annexure­B   also   recorded   that   certain
work involving final finishing has not been done to avoid any
damage to the flat before the possession thereof was handed
over   to   the   appellants.   According   to   the   case   of   the
appellants,   though   the   said   letter   offered   possession   of   the
said   apartment   to   the   appellants,   in   fact,   a   lot   of   work   was
incomplete.   According   to   the   case   of   the   appellants,   on   31 st
December   2016,   they   paid   a   balance   consideration   of
approximately   Rs.1.80   crores   to   the   respondent­Company.
Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.89,20,000/­ was paid by
the   appellants   by   taking   a   loan   from   the   said   Bank.   The
appellants   have   claimed   that   to   expedite   the   process   of
completion,   they   accepted   the   suggestion   of   the   respondent­
Company of taking a discount of Rs.4,72,900/­ against giving
up   facilities   of   air­conditioners,   wardrobes,   modular   kitchen
and jacuzzi agreed to be provided in the said apartment. The
appellants   have   relied   upon   correspondence   made   by   them
with the respondent­Company from time to time for informing
that   the   condition   of   the   said   apartment   was   pathetic.   The
appellants   called   upon   the   respondent­Company   to   specify
the   date   and   time   at   which,   the   possession   of   the   said
5

apartment will be handed over to them after rectifying all the
defects.   The   appellants   have   stated   that   though   the   said
apartment was not ready in July 2017, they obtained e­stamp
paper by depositing stamp duty of Rs.13,67,700/­. According
to the case of the appellants, even thereafter, the work in the
said   apartment   was   not   completed,   notwithstanding   the
assurance   given   in   writing   by   the   respondent­Company   to
keep the  flat  ready   by   the  second  week  of  August  2017.  The
third   appellant   addressed   a   letter   through   e­mail   dated   21 st
September   2017   to   the   respondent­Company   stating   that   a
consumer   complaint   has   already   been   filed   by   them   against
the respondent­Company before the National Commission. By
the   said   e­mail,   the   appellants   called   upon   the   respondent­
Company to refund the entire amount paid by  them  towards
consideration of the said apartment. During the pendency of
the complaint filed by the appellants, by the letter dated 23 rd
November   2017   addressed   to   the   third   appellant,   the
respondent­Company   informed   that   the   said   apartment   was
ready   for   the   delivery   of   possession   and   that   the   possession
will be handed over on the date and time as intimated by the
appellants.
6

5. It is necessary to make a brief reference to the complaint
filed   by   the   appellants   before   the   National   Commission   on
which,   the   impugned   judgment   has   been   passed.   The   basic
contention   raised   by   the   appellants   was   that   the   possession
was   to   be   handed   over   to   them   within   24   months   from   11 th
July   2015   and   though   the   entire   consideration   was   paid   by
the   appellants   to   the   respondent­Company   in   December
2016,   even   by   September   2017,   the   said   apartment   was   not
at  all ready   for  possession. As  the entire  payment  was made
on   31 st
  December   2016,   within   45   days   from   the   said   date,
the   possession   of   the   said   apartment   ought   to   have   been
handed   over   to   the   appellants.   But,   the   work   inside   the
apartment   was   not   completed   even   till   September   2017.   The
complaint   was   filed   by   the   appellants   alleging   deficiency   in
service   rendered   by   the   respondent­Company.   The   condition
of  the  said apartment as of 6 th
  September  2017 was also set
out   in   the   complaint   which,   according   to   the   appellants,
showed   that  a  lot   of   work   was   still   not  carried   out.  The  first
prayer   in   the   complaint   was   for   refund   of   the   entire
consideration amount paid by the appellants in respect of the
said   apartment   as   well   as   the   other   miscellaneous   charges
7

with   interest   thereon   at   the   rate   of   18%   per   annum   on   the
entire   amount   till   the   date   of   payment   of   refund.   Another
prayer   was   made   to   refund   the   sum   of   Rs.15   lakhs   paid   by
the   appellants   by   way   of   late   payment   charges   to   the
respondent­Company   as   well   as   the   monthly   installments
paid   by   the   appellants   to   the   said   Bank.   The   appellants
prayed   for   grant   of   compensation   on   account   of   the   mental
agony   caused   to   them   due   to   the   failure   of   the   respondent­
Company in rendering service.
6. The   respondent­Company   contested   the   complaint.   The
respondent­Company   pointed   out   that   immediately   after
obtaining   the   completion   certificate,   on   24 th
  October   2016,
the   appellants   were   called   upon   to   complete   pre­possession
formalities   and   to   pay   the   entire   balance   amount.   The
contention   raised   by   the   respondent­Company   was   that   the
entire consideration was not paid by the appellants within 45
days of the receipt of the letter  dated 24 th
  October  2016 and
the   payment   of   the   entire   amount   of   the   balance
consideration   was   made   only   in   May   2017.   One   of   the
contentions   raised   is   that   as   per   Clause   9   of   the   general
8

terms   and   conditions   referred   to   in   the   allotment   letter   and
signed   and   executed   by   the   appellants,   the   appellants   could
claim   a   refund   only   if   the   possession   was   not   handed   over
within  three months  from  the  completion of  the  period  of 24
months from  the  date of  the  allotment letter. It is contended
that   even   before   the   expiry   of   the   said   grace   period   of   three
months, the complaint was filed claiming the refund.
7. The   National   Commission   by   the   impugned   judgment
and   order   held   that   refund   could   have   been   sought   by   the
appellants   only   if   possession   was   not   handed   over   on   or
before   11 th
  October   2017,   but   the   appellants   rushed   to   the
National   Commission   and   filed   the   complaint   on   21 st
September   2017.   The   National   Commission   referred   to   its
interim   order   dated   17 th
  October   2017   by   which   the
appellants   were   called   upon   to   file   a   report   of   a   qualified
architect specifying defects/ deficiencies on account of which,
they   were   not   willing   to   take   possession   of   the   said
apartment.   The   National   Commission   observed   that
compliance   with   the   said   directions   was   not   made   by   the
appellants. The National Commission observed that there was
9

no   valid   reason   for   the   appellants   not   to   accept   the
possession of the said apartment and therefore, there was no
merit in the complaint filed by the appellants. 
FAILED ATTEMPT TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE
8. We may note here that we had called upon the parties to
explore a possibility of amicable settlement. The parties could
not   arrive   at   an   amicable   settlement.   However,   during   the
course   of   submissions,   it   was   accepted   that   the   appellants
had   brought   a   purchaser   who   was   willing   to   purchase   the
said   apartment   at   the   cost   of   Rs.2.85   crores.   The   learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondent­Company stated
that considering the fact that the third appellant is a member
of the Bar, the respondent­Company is prepared to give up a
sum   of   approximately   Rs.30   lakhs   still   payable   by   the
appellants  and   transfer  the  said  apartment   to  the  purchaser
brought   by   the   appellants.   In   the   alternative,   the   learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondent­Company stated
that   by   giving   up   the   claim   to   receive   the   amount   of
approximately   Rs.30   lakhs   payable   by   the   appellants,   the
10

respondent­Company   is   willing   to   put   the   appellants   in
possession   of   the   said   apartment   which   is   ready   for
possession.   However,   this   offer   was   not   accepted   by   the
appellants   who   are   still   insisting   on   getting   refund   of   the
amount   paid   by   them   with   interest.   Therefore,   the   parties
could not arrive at an amicable settlement.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS 
9. The   third   appellant   who   is   an   Advocate,   has   made
submissions   on   behalf   of   the   appellants.   He   submitted   that
as   there   was   a   gross   delay   on   the   part   of   the   respondent­
Company   in   completing   the   construction   of   the   apartment
earlier   booked   by   the   third   appellant,   the   appellants   had   no
choice   but   to   accept   the   offer   given   by   the   respondent­
Company   in   respect   of   the   allotment   of   the   said   apartment.
Relying upon the correspondence made from time to time and
photographs placed on  record, the third appellant submitted
that   the   entire   balance   consideration   in   respect   of   the   said
apartment   was   paid   by   the   appellants   by   31 st
  December
2016, and therefore, the respondent­Company was under  an
obligation   to   complete   the   said   apartment   in   all   respects
11

within   45   days   from   31 st
  December   2016   and   put   the
appellants in possession thereof. He pointed out that though
the   appellants   repeatedly   protested   by   addressing
communications   to   the   respondent­Company   that   the
construction of the apartment was incomplete, no steps were
taken   by   the   respondent­Company   to   complete   the   work.
Moreover, the appellants were forced to pay certain amounts
towards   social   club   subscription   and   the   maintenance
advance,   though   no   facilities   were   in   existence.   He   pointed
out   that   after   granting   enough   opportunities   to   the
respondent­Company to complete the work in the apartment,
on   21 st
  September   2017,   the   complaint   was   filed   by   the
appellants.   The   third   appellant   also   pointed   out   that   the
entire   consideration   amount   paid   by   the   appellants   towards
the   booking   of   the   apartment   in   Garden   Isles   was   not
transferred   by   the   respondent­Company   towards   the
consideration of the said apartment.
10. The third appellant appearing in person pointed out that
the   conduct   of   the   respondent­Company   is   fraudulent   as
without   furnishing   even   a   copy   of   the   standard   terms   and
12

conditions of the allotment, signatures of the appellants were
taken   on   the   last   page   of   the   terms   and   conditions.   He
submitted that therefore, Clause 9.5(a) in the standard terms
and  conditions will not  be binding  on  the appellants. Hence,
the   argument   of   the   respondent­Company   that   the   grace
period  of  three months  was  available  to  it  after   the  expiry  of
24 months from the date of the letter of allotment, is without
any   foundation   and   ought   not   to   have   been   accepted   by   the
National   Commission.   The   third   appellant   also   pointed   out
the   terms   and   conditions   of   the   Quadripartite   Agreement
dated   9 th
  December   2016   to   which   the   appellants,   the   said
Bank and the respondent­Company  were parties. He pointed
out that as per Clause 17(d), the respondent­Company agreed
that   in   the   event   of   termination   of   provisional   allotment   for
any reason, the said company was under an obligation to pay
the consideration received by it directly to the said Bank after
retaining   an   amount   up   to   10%   of   the   total   sale
consideration.   He   would,   therefore,   submit   that   once
termination is made by the appellants by demanding a refund
of the consideration, the respondent­Company is bound by its
obligation   to   immediately   refund   at   least   90%   of   the
13

consideration amount received from the appellants. The third
appellant appearing in person, pointed out certain documents
placed on record to  show that the first appellant  is suffering
from   liver   disease   and   the   first   appellant’s   husband,   who   is
also   a   member   of   the   Bar,   is   suffering   from   chronic   liver
disease and has been recently operated upon for removal of a
cancerous   tumor   from   his   liver.   The   third   appellant   pointed
out that the appellants are entitled to the refund of the entire
consideration   and   other   charges   paid   in   respect   of   the   said
apartment   as   well   as   in   respect   of   the   apartment   earlier
agreed to be allotted to the third appellant with interest at the
rate   of   12%   per   annum   till   the   date   of   realisation.   The   third
appellant   relied   upon   a   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Bangalore   Development   Authority   v.   Syndicate   Bank 1
.
The   third  appellant   also   relied  upon   another  decision   of   this
Court   in   the   case   of   United   India   Insurance   Company
Limited v. Antique Art Exports Private Limited 2
.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
1   2007 (6) SCC 711
2   2019 (5) SCC 362
14

11. The   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the
respondent­Company   firstly   invited   our   attention   to   the
interim order of the National Commission dated 17 th
  October
2017 by which, the appellants were directed to file a report of
a   qualified   architect   specifying   the   defects/deficiencies   on
account   of   which   they   were   not   willing   to   accept   the
possession   of   the   said   apartment.   He   stated   that   till   the
disposal of the complaint, the appellants never complied with
the interim order. The learned senior counsel pointed out that
the   allotment   letter   refers   to   the   standard   terms   and
conditions of the allotment. He submitted that the appellants
never   disputed   the   terms   and   conditions   referred   to   in   the
letter   of   allotment   dated   11 th
  July   2016,   which   specifically
refers to  the  standard terms and conditions  of allotment. He
pointed out that though a reference to the said general terms
and conditions appears in several documents, the appellants
never   made   any   grievance   that   a   copy   of   the   same   was   not
provided to them. He submitted that there is no dispute that
the signatures of the appellants appear on the last page of the
said standard terms and conditions and that it is not the case
pleaded   before   the   National   Commission   by   the   appellants
15

that   their   signatures   on   the   last   page   were   taken   without
giving   them   copies   of   the   original   pages.   He   submitted   that
Clause   9.5   (a)   specifically   provides   that   the   allottee   shall   be
entitled   to   cancel   the   allotment   only   on   default   of   the
respondent­Company   to   deliver   possession   of   the   said
apartment   within   27   months   from   the   date   of   the   allotment
letter. He submitted that only after  completion of 27 months
from   11 th
  July   2016,   the   appellants   could   have   claimed   a
refund.   He   submitted   that   the   said   period   expired   on   10 th
October   2017.   However,   even   before   the   expiry   of   the   period
of   27   months,   the   appellants   demanded   a   refund   of   the
consideration   paid   by   them   and   filed   the   complaint   with   the
National   Commission   on   21 st
  September   2017.   The   learned
senior   counsel   also   pointed   out   that   by   e­mail   dated   23 rd
November 2017, possession of the said apartment was offered
to   the   appellants.   He   submitted   that   there   is   absolutely   no
deficiency   in   service   rendered   by   the   respondent­Company.
He stated that it is only because of the fact that the husband
of the first appellant is ill and that he is a member of the Bar,
that   the   offer   given   by   the   respondent­Company   which   is
noted   in   paragraph   8   above,   stands,   though   there   is   no
16

settlement.  He would,  therefore,  submit  that  no   fault  can  be
found with the impugned judgment.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
12. We   have   carefully   considered   the   submissions   and
perused   the   documents   placed   on   record   along   with
additional   documents.   The   question   before   us   is   whether
there   was   any   deficiency   in   the   service   rendered   by   the
respondent­Company.   The   letter   of   allotment   provides   that
the   possession   of   the   said   apartment   shall   be   given   to   the
appellants   within   24   months   from   the   date   of   the   allotment
letter. The allotment letter of 11 th
 July 2015 specifically refers
to the standard terms and conditions. The relevant part of the
letter of allotment reads thus.:
“ The   Standard   Terms   and   Conditions
including the Undertaking(s) given  by you
forms part of this allotment.  This allotment
letter   cancels   and   supercedes   all   previous
written and oral understandings in respect of
the   allotment   of   the   said   Unit   done   by   this
letter.”
(emphasis added)
13. We  may   note  here  that  the  appellants  have  relied  upon
the   terms   and   conditions   of   the   Quadripartite   Agreement   to
17

which   the   appellants   and   the   respondent­Company   are
parties. Clause 22 of the said agreement specifically refers to
the   standard   terms   and   conditions   of   the   allotment.   It   is
pertinent   to   note   that   Clause   22   of   the   said   agreement
provides   that   notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   the
Quadripartite Agreement, the appellants shall continue to be
liable   for   the   payment   of   dues   to   the   respondent­Company
under   the   standard   terms   and   conditions   of   the   allotment.
The   appellants   have   made   a   prolonged   correspondence   with
the   respondent­Company.   In   none   of   the   letters/e­mails
addressed by the appellants, a grievance has been made that
a   copy   of   the   said   standard   terms   and   conditions   was   not
provided to the appellants. Moreover, it is not the case made
out either in the correspondence or in the complaint that the
signatures of the appellants were obtained on the last page of
the   standard   terms   and   conditions   without   providing   a   copy
thereof to them. Thus, it is not open for the appellants to urge
that   the   they   are   not   bound   by   the   standard   terms   and
conditions.
18

14. The letter of allotment dated 11 th
 July 2015 records that
possession of the said apartment is expected to be offered to
the appellants within a period of 24 months. Clause 9.5 (a) of
the standard terms and conditions reads thus.: 
“ 9.5(a)   The   Applicants/Allottee   shall   be
entitled   to   cancel   the   Allotment   only   on
default   of   the   Company   to   deliver
possession   of   the   Said   Premises   within
the   stipulated   period   as   mentioned
hereinabove and within the further period
of three months thereafter.   Upon expiry of
stipulated period and upon the request of the
Applicant/Allottee,   the   Company   shall
refund   the   amount   (a)   had   been   received
from   the   Applicant/Allottee   along   with
simple interest of the rate of 12% per annum
(subject to deduction of tax as applicable).”
                                        (emphasis added)
Clause 7.1 of the standard terms and conditions provides that
the possession will be handed over within the period described
in the letter of allotment. The said period is of 24 months from
the   date   of   the   allotment   letter.   However,   a   grace   period   of
three   months   has   been   made   available   to   the   respondent­
Company.   If   within   this   grace   period   of   three   months,
possession is not handed over, the appellants were entitled to
seek a refund. Thus, as per Clause 9.5(a), the appellants were
19

entitled to seek a refund of the consideration paid provided the
possession   of   the   said   apartment   was   not   offered   within   the
said   period   of   27   months   from   the   date   of   the   letter   of
allotment. 
15. Thus,   as   per   the   terms   of   the   letter   of   allotment,   the
respondent­Company was under an obligation to complete the
construction of the apartment and offer possession thereof, on
or   before   10 th
  July   2017.   In   view   of   Clause   9.5(a)   of   the
standard terms and conditions, the appellants were entitled to
seek a refund only if the possession of the said apartment was
not handed over within 3 months from 11 th
  July 2017. It is in
the context of the standard terms and conditions read with the
terms   and   conditions   in   the   allotment   letter   that   the
controversy will have to be resolved.
16. The   appellants   have   not   disputed   that   the   competent
authority   had   granted   completion   certificate   to   the   tower   in
question   on   20 th
  July   2016.   A   copy   of   the   said   document   is
placed   on   record   by   the   respondent­Company   along   with
application   for   filing   additional   documents.   The   letter   dated
24 th
  October   2016   addressed   by   the   respondent­Company   to
20

the   appellants   records   that   the   said   apartment   was   ready   for
pre­possession   formalities   and   for   handing   over   possession.
Therefore,   the   appellants   were   called   upon   to   complete   pre­
possession   formalities   as   listed   in   Annexure­A   to   the   said
letter.   One   of   the   pre­possession   formalities   incorporated   in
Annexure­A   was   a   submission   by   the   appellants   of   a   non­
judicial   e­stamp  paper  of   the   amount   equivalent   to  5%   of   the
value   specified   therein.   The   appellants   were   also   required   to
pay certain amounts towards the cost of electricity meter, gas
pipeline connection, and registration expenses. Annexure­B to
the letter dated 24 th
 October 2016 incorporates the description
of four car parking slots allotted to the appellants. Annexure­B
also records that certain works specified therein, such as final
coat   of   painting/polish,   fixing   of   C.P.   fittings   and   chinaware
hardware   fittings/   equipment,   fixing   of   wooden   flooring,
wardrobe,   and   modular   kitchen   has   been   withheld   to   avoid
damage   before   actual   possession   is   handed   over.   By   the   said
letter   dated   24 th
  October   2016,   the   appellants   were   called
upon   to   pay   the   balance   amount   of   Rs.1,82,26,309.30,   the
breakup of which was set out in the said letter. The appellants
21

were   called   upon   to   make   the     payment   on   or   before   23 rd
November 2016. The said letter records thus:
“We  would   request   you   to   make   the   above
payment,   within   30   days   i.e.   before
23.11.2016   (due   date),   and   complete   the
pre­possession   documentation   to   enable
us to complete the final finishing works, if
any, and to hand over the above apartment
to   you   within   45   days   of   the   aforesaid
payment.”
17. Thus,   the   said   letter   was   essentially   addressed   to   the
appellants   calling   upon   them   to   complete   pre­possession
formalities by 23 rd
  November 2016 which included payment of
the aforesaid amount. According to the case of the appellants,
they paid an amount of Rs.1.80 crores on 31 st
 December 2016.
Apart from the fact that the appellants failed to pay the entire
amount   specified   in   the   letter   dated   24 th
  October   2016   on   or
before   23   November   2016,   the   statement   of   accounts   at
Annexure­A­18 to the appeal shows that the last payment was
made   on   2 nd
  May   2017.   Thus,   the   appellants   themselves
committed default in payment of the balance amount payable
by   them.   Moreover,   as   stated   in   Annexure­A,   one   of   the   pre­
possession   formalities   included   the   procurement   of   e­stamp
duty of Rs.13,67,700/­ on or before 23 rd
  November 2016. But,
22

Annexure   A­23,   which   is   the   e­mail   addressed   by   the   third
appellant   to   the   respondent­Company   shows   that   the   stamp
duty   was   paid   as   late   as   on   3 rd
  July   2017.   Though   the
respondent­Company had time available till 10 th
 October 2017
(including  the   grace  period   of   3   months)   to   complete   the   said
apartment   in   all   respects   and   offer   possession   to   the
appellants,   by   e­mail   dated   17 th
  July   2017,   the   respondent­
Company informed the appellants that the said apartment will
be ready by the second week of August 2017. In view of Clause
9.5(a)   of   the   standard   terms   and   conditions,   the   appellants
could   have   demanded   the   refund   of   the   amount   only   if   the
possession of the said apartment was not handed over to them
on   or   before   10 th
  October   2017.   However,   without   waiting   till
10 th
  October   2017,   by   e­mail   communication   dated   21 st
September   2017,   the   third   appellant   called   upon   the
respondent­Company  to process the refund of the amount. In
fact,   in   the   same   letter,   it   was   mentioned   that   the   complaint
subject matter of this appeal was already filed on the same day
before   the   National   Commission.   The   appellants   were   not
entitled to claim  the refund till 10 th
  October  2017. Hence, the
complaint was premature. As stated earlier, the appellants did
23

not   complete   the   pre­possession   formalities   set   out   in   the
letter   dated   24 th
  October   2016   and   its   Annexure­A   within   the
time   stipulated.   Moreover,   during   the   pendency   of   the
complaint   before   the   National   Commission,   by   e­mail   dated
23 rd
  November   2017,   the   appellants   were   called   upon   to   take
possession of the said apartment on any day between Monday
and Saturday, after intimating the time and date.
18. Reliance   was   placed   on   the   obligation   of   the   respondent
incorporated in Clause 17(d) of the Quadripartite Agreement to
refund   90%   of  the   amount  paid   by   the   appellants   to   the   said
Bank.   However,   Clause   22   of   the   same   agreement   provides
that   notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   the   said
Agreement,   the   appellants   shall   continue   to   be   liable   for
payment   of   their   dues   to   the   respondent   under   the   standard
terms and conditions.
19. At   this   stage,   we   may   note   the   interim   order   dated   17 th
October 2017 passed by the Tribunal, which read thus:
“The   learned   counsel   for   the   complainants   states
on   instructions   that   the   possession   of   the   flat
offered   vide   letter   dated   24.12.2016   was   not
accepted   by   the   complainants   for   several   reasons
including   the   defects   in   the   flat   offered   to   them.
24

The complainants are directed to file report from a
qualified   architect,   specifying   the   defects/
deficiencies   on   account   of   which   they   are   not
willing   to   take   possession   of   the   flat   offered   to
them.   In   the   meanwhile,   the   complaint   is
admitted,   subject   to   just   exceptions.   Issue   notice
in   terms   of   Section   13(1)   of   the   Consumer
Protection   Act   alongwith   a   copy   of   the   complaint
to   the   OP   for   13.02.2018   alongwith   notice   of   IA
No.16392 of 2017 directing it to give its version of
the case within a period of 30 days from the date
of receipt of the notice.”
The   appellants   have   not   shown   compliance   with   the   said
order. The failure of the appellants to do so is very relevant in
the context of their allegation that the work in the said flat was
not   completed.   Therefore,   adverse   inference   can   be   drawn
against   the   appellants.   Hence,   the   appellants   failed   to
substantiate   the   grounds   pleaded   by   them   for   not   taking
possession.
20. At   this   stage,   we   may   consider   here   whether   there   was
any   defect/deficiency   in   the   service   rendered   by   the
respondent­Company.   Words   ‘defect’   and   ‘deficiency’   have
been   defined   under   Clauses   (f)   and   (g)   of   Section   2   of   the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which read thus.:
“2.(f) "defect" means any fault, imperfection
or   shortcoming   in   the   quality,   quantity,
25

potency,   purity   or   standard   which   is
required to be maintained by or under any
law   for   the   time   being   in   force   or   2[under
any   contract,   express   or   implied   or]   as   is
claimed   by   the   trader   in   any   manner
whatsoever in relation to any goods; 
(g) "deficiency"   means   any   fault,
imperfection,   shortcoming   or   inadequacy
in   the   quality,   nature   and   manner   of
performance   which   is   required   to   be
maintained   by   or   under   any   law   for   the
time being in force or has been undertaken
to  be performed by  a person  in  pursuance
of a contract or otherwise in relation to any
service;”
21. In this case, we are concerned with the alleged deficiency
in   service   rendered   by   the   respondent­Company.   Till   the   date
on which the complaint was filed by the appellants, we do not
find   that   there   was   any   fault,   shortcoming   or   inadequacy   in
the   quality,   nature   and   manner   of   the   performance   on   the
terms   and   conditions   on   which   allotment   of   the   said
apartment   was   offered   to   the   appellants.   Therefore,   the
appellants   were   not   entitled   to   claim   the   refund   of   the
consideration   paid   by   them   in   respect   of   the   said   apartment.
Hence, it is not possible to find fault with the reasons recorded
by   the   National   Commission   in   the   impugned   judgment   and
26

order.   Accordingly,   there   is   no   merit   in   this   appeal   and   the
same is dismissed.
22. However,   in   view   of   the   solemn   statement   made   by   the
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent­
Company,   we   grant   time   of   two   months   to   the   appellants   to
bring   a   prospective   buyer   interested   in   acquiring   the   said
apartment   along   with   the   right   to   use   four   reserved   car
parking   slots   as   mentioned   in   the   letter   dated   24 th
  October
2016.   Within   the   said   period   of   two   months,   the   appellants
shall   submit   to   the   respondent   –   Company,   the   letter   of   offer
signed by the prospective buyer. If such a buyer is brought by
the   appellants   within   a   period   of   two   months   from   today,   the
respondent­Company  shall transfer  the  said apartment to  the
appellants by completing all formalities within a period of one
month   from  the   date  of   the   offer   letter.  In   such  an   event,  the
entire   amount   liable   to   be   paid   by   the   appellants   to   the   said
Bank   shall   be   paid   over   by   the   respondent­Company
immediately   on   receipt   of   the   consideration   amount   from   the
purchaser.   The  balance   amount,   if  any,  shall   be  paid  over   by
the   respondent­Company   to   the   appellants.   If   the   appellants
27

are not able to procure a buyer for the said apartment within a
period   of   two   months   from   today,   it   will   be   open   for   the
appellants   to   take   possession   of   the   said   apartment   together
with the right to use four car parking slots as mentioned in the
letter dated 24 th
 October 2016 within a period of three months
from today by giving advance intimation of at least seven days
to the respondent­Company. Needless to add that as the entire
consideration   in   respect   of   the   said   apartment   has   been   paid
by   the   appellants,   the   respondent­Company   shall   not   be
entitled   to   demand   any   amount   from   the   appellants   as   a
condition   for   handing   over   the   possession   or   for   transferring
the   same   to   the   purchaser   brought   by   the   appellants,   as   the
case may be. On failure of the appellants to take possession of
the   aforesaid   apartment   within   3   months   from   today,   the
appellants will have no claim over the said apartment. In such
case,   it   will   be   open   to   the   respondent­Company   to   alienate
the said apartment.
……..…………………J.
      (SURYA KANT)
……..…………………J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
New Delhi;
September 16, 2022.   
28