Homebuyer can seek compensation for delay after possession: SC

The Supreme Court has said that a homebuyer can seek adjudication of his claim for compensation for the delay in delivery of the flat even after getting its possession. The apex court set aside a 2016 order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which said that the appellant was not a consumer at the time of filing his complaint alleging a deficiency in service on account of the delay in handing over the possession of the flat, since he had already taken its possession without protest. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and V Mohana passed the order on a plea by a homebuyer, who became a member of a cooperative group housing society in Delhi in January 2003 and was allotted a flat, challenging the NCDRC's order.
The top court observed that a claim for compensation for delayed possession necessarily arises from the period prior to the actual delivery of possession. “The subsequent receipt of possession cannot, by itself, extinguish the right of the allottee to seek adjudication of a claim for compensation for the alleged delay,” the bench said in its June 4 order. The appellant had instituted a consumer complaint before the district consumer forum, alleging a deficiency in service on account of the delay in handing over possession of the flat.
In July 2009, the district forum referred the parties to arbitration and that order was affirmed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in February 2013. The appellant then approached the NCDRC, which dismissed his revision petition in January 2016. The appellant argued before the apex court that the consumer complaint could not have been referred to arbitration merely on the basis of an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties.
Dealing with the appeal, the bench referred to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and said it is a beneficial legislation intended to provide a simple, inexpensive and expeditious remedy to a consumer who complains of a defect in goods or deficiency in service. It said Section 3 of the Act provides that the remedy under this legislation was in addition to and not in derogation of any other remedy available under the law. “The existence of another forum or another mode of adjudication, therefore, does not by itself exclude the jurisdiction of the consumer fora,” it said.
The bench said the fact that the agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause could not, by itself, be treated as sufficient to non-suit the appellant before the consumer forum. It said the NCDRC’s order suffered from an “additional infirmity”. The bench said the reasoning adopted by the NCDRC cannot be sustained.