/2022 INSC 0895/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).4913 of 2015
M/s. ASHOKA INVESTMENT CO.      …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/s. UNITED TOWERS INDIA (PVT.) LTD.   …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Vikram Nath, J.
1. This   appeal   by   the   Consumer   under   Section   23   of   the
Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986 1
  has   been   filed   assailing   the
correctness of the order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the National
Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission 2
,   (NCDRC),   Delhi   in
Original   Petition   No.377   of   2000   between   M/s.   Ashoka
Investment Company Vs. M/s. United Towers India (Pvt.) Ltd. By
the said order, the NCDRC directed the respondents to refund an
amount   of   Rs.4,95,000/­(four   lakhs   and   ninety   five   thousand)
1  In short “the 1986 Act”
2  In short “NCDRC”
pg.  1

being total sale consideration to the appellant with interest @ 9 %
per annum w.e.f. 17.01.1995 till the date of refund/compliance.
2. The   admitted   facts   are   that,   the   appellant   on   12.05.1980
applied for purchase of two flats bearing Nos.501 and 502 on the
5 th
  Floor,   1 st
  Block,   Krishna   Apartments,   Bangalore   for   a   total
sale   consideration   of   Rs.4,95,000/­(four   lakhs   and   ninety   five
thousand).   Along   with   the   application,   the   appellant   paid
Rs.1,00,000/­   (one   lakh)   each   for   the   two   flats   by   way   of   two
Demand­Drafts. 
3. An   agreement   to   sell   was   executed   between   the   parties   on
17.05.1980. As per para 3 of the agreement, possession was to be
delivered   within   a   period   of   18­21   months   under   normal
conditions   subject,   however,   to   the   availability   of   cement,   steel
and   other   building   materials,   electrical   or   power   connections,
drainage connection and subject to and including any Act of God,
drought,   flood   or   any   other   natural   calamity   and/or   war
restrictions   by   the   Government,   Municipal   Corporation   or   any
other   public   authorities   or   any   other   acts   beyond   the   control   of
the builders.
pg.  2

4. Under   paragraph   6   of   the   agreement,   it   is   provided   that   if
there   was   any   default   in   payment   of   installments,   the   builder
would   be   at   liberty   to   insist   for   payment   of   the   amount   due
together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of default
till the date of payment on the defaulted amount.
5. The entire amount of Rs.4,95,000/­ (four lakhs and ninety­
five   thousand)   has   since   been   paid   by   the   appellant   to   the
respondent.   A   dispute   arose   sometimes   in   1991   when   the
respondent   raised   demand   of   Rs.1,56,046/­(one   lakh   fifty   six
thousand   and   forty   six)   with   respect   to   one   apartment   and
Rs.1,62,202/­(one lakh sixty two thousand and two hundred two)
for   the   other   apartment.   These   demands   were   raised   vide   bill
dated   15.12.1991.   These   demands   were   objected   to   by   the
appellant and a request was made to hand over the possession of
the two flats.
6.   Apparently,     possession   was   not   given   and,   thereafter,   it
appears   that   in   January,   1999,   the   appellant   visited   the
apartments   only   to   find   that   both   the   apartment   Nos.501   and
502   had   been   transferred   by   the   respondent   in   favour   of   third
parties. It was thereupon that the appellant made enquiries and
pg.  3

came to know that the respondent had cancelled the allotment on
17.01.1995 and, thereafter, transferred it to the third parties. 
7. After   giving   due   notice,   the   appellant   approached   the
NCDRC by way of a complaint praying for following reliefs:
"(a)  To   direct   the   Opposite   Party   to   forthwith   hand
over   to   the   Complainant   vacant   and   peaceful
possession   of   the   flats   allotted   to   it   being   Flats
No.501   and   502,   Krishna   Apartments,   Corporation
No.13, Ali Asker Road, in Corporation Division No.59,
Bangalore   and   to   further   pay   a   sum   of
Rs.22,50,000/­ towards delayed delivery till the date
of   the   application   together   with   damages   in   the   sum
of   Rs.3,00,000/­   as   specified   in   para   22   of   the
application:
(b) In   the   alternative   to   pay   to   the   Complainant   a
sum   of   Rs.48,27,000/­   as   detailed   in   Paras   21   and
22   above,   with   pendente   lite   and   further   interest   at
the rate of 18% per annum.
(c) Costs of and incidental to these proceedings be
provided for, and
(d) Such   other   and   further   orders   as   this   Hon’ble
Commission   may   deem   fit   and   proper   in   the
circumstances of the case be passed.”
8. The   respondent   contested   the   complaint   on   technical
grounds   as   also   on   merit.   According   to   the   respondent,   the
appellant   was   not   a   consumer   and   further   that   the   cancellation
pg.  4

had   taken   place   after   several   opportunities   and   due   notice.   The
appellant had disputed receiving of any notice.
9. The NCDRC by  the impugned order  held that the appellant
was   a   consumer   as   the   amendment   in   the   1986   Act   has   been
brought   in   2003  whereby   a  person   who   obtains   goods  for   resale
or   for   any   commercial   purpose   was   not   to   be   treated   as   a
consumer   within   the   meaning   of   the   definition   of   consumer
provided   under   Section   2(1)(d)(i)   of   the   1986   Act.   Further,   the
NCDRC   also   found   fault   on   the   part   of   both   the   parties.   The
appellant   not   approaching   the   Commission   with   clean   hands,
with much  delay  and further  the  respondent conducting  himself
in   a   high   handed   and   arbitrary   manner.   It   accordingly   disposed
of   the   complaint   by   directing   the   respondents   to   refund   the
amount along with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 17.01.1995 till the date of
refund/compliance.
10. After   hearing   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   perusing
the material on record, we enquired from  the respondents, as to
whether, the amount as awarded by the NCDRC in the impugned
order dated 16.03.2015 has been paid to the appellant or not. We
were   informed   that   amount   has   not   been   paid   so   far.   No
pg.  5

justification   has   come   forward   as   to   why   the   awarded   amount
was not tendered to the appellant. The appellant has pressed for
the   entire   complaint   being   allowed   as   per   the   relief   claimed
therein. On the other hand, the respondent has sought to justify
the   order   of   NCDRC.   However,   there   is   no   appeal   by   the
respondent.   The   appellant   has   also   pressed   vehemently   that
respondent   should   be   called   upon   to   produce   the   sale   deeds   of
the two flats in question, transferred in favour of the third parties
and that the said amount ought to be paid to the appellant along
with other claims, the respondent has unjustly enriched itself by
the aforesaid conduct. On the other hand, this request has been
resisted by the respondents.
11. Having   considered   the   submissions   of   the   learned   counsel
for the parties, we are in agreement with the findings recorded by
the   NCDRC   regarding   the   conduct   of   both   the   parties,   however,
we feel that in the fitness of things and in the interest of both the
parties considering the nature of agreement made and also their
conduct that the order of the NCDRC requires to be modified. The
rate of interest awarded is only 9%. Once, we find that under the
agreement, in the event of default, the appellant's liability to pay
pg.  6

interest on the defaulted amount could go up to 18%, it would be
just and proper in the facts of the present case that 18% interest
be awarded on the refund amount.
12. We   accordingly   partly   allow   this   appeal   and   in   partial
modification of the impugned order of the NCDRC, we direct that
respondent   will   refund   the   amount   of   Rs.4,95,000/­(four   lakhs
and   ninety­five   thousand)   being   the   total   sale   consideration   to
the   appellant   along   with   interest   @   18%   per   annum   w.e.f.
17.01.1995   till   the   date,   it   is   paid.   The   said   amount   be   paid   at
the   earliest   and   in   any   case   within   a   period   of   four   weeks   from
today.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Pending application(s) if any, is/are disposed of.
…..……..........................J.
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE]
………….........................J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
NEW DELHI
OCTOBER  11, 2022. 
pg.  7