Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘National Commission’) passed in the respective Appeal Executions dismissing the same, the developer – Parsvnath Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ’Developer’) has preferred four appeals bearing Civil Appeal Nos. Clause 9(a) of the said agreement provided that the construction of the flats was likely to be completed within 36 months from the date of signing of the Development Agreement between CHB and the appellant, i.e., 06.10.2006. 3 Pending arbitral proceedings, due to delay in allotment of the flats to the allottees, the allottees filed individual complaints before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘District Forum’), the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘State Commission’) and before the National Commission.
This Court vide order dated 10.05.2013 issued notice and stayed the operation of the judgment and order dated 05.03.2013 of the National Commission in part to the extent of the payment of compensation under clause 9(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement.
In the award, the learned arbitrator also held that any amount payable on account of refund of price, interest or compensation (if and when finally determined by the National Commission/Supreme Court) would be borne by the appellant and the CHB in the ratio of 70:30. 7
That thereafter, by order dated 08.05.2015, the National Commission disposed of First Appeal No. 8 That thereafter, the respective buyers – original complainants filed execution petitions before the State Commission.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
9 Aggrieved by order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the State Commission, the appellant herein filed the present Appeal Execution before the National Commission.
1 Shri Sachin Datta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Developer has vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the National Commission is just contrary to the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal It is submitted that even otherwise, in view of the arbitration award dated 09.01.2015 which attained finality, it provided that the liability to pay the amount to the buyers/allottees including the amount of compensation shall be paid in the ratio of 70:30 and even this Court also while disposed of Civil Appeal While opposing the present appeals, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CHB have vehemently submitted that under the Tripartite Agreement/Flat Buyer Agreement and as per clause 9(c), it is the exclusive liability of the developer to pay the compensation to the buyers/allottees.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the principal amount as well as the interest in terms of the order(s) of the State Commission have been paid to the respective complainants/allottees and the only issue involved in these appeals is as to whether the compensation awarded by the State Commission in terms of clause 9(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement is payable solely by the developer – appellant herein or it is to be shared between the developer and the CHB in the ratio of 70:30? 17133-17134/2013 and other allied connected matters, when the award passed by the learned arbitrator was brought to the notice of this Court, this Court specifically observed in paragraphs 6 & 7 as under: “6.
If, for any reason, the respondent(s)/buyer(s) file any execution petition 8 for execution of the judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the Commission, the Developer is at liberty to take such objections based on award passed by the Arbitrator.
In any case, we find that such division is well-founded as the sale proceeds from the flat buyers were apportioned in the 16 same ratio of 70:30 between the Developer and CHB.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/c-a-no-003481-003481-2022/
In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the National Commission and that of the State Commission are required to be modified to the extent holding the appellant – developer liable to pay compensation under clause 9(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement to the extent of 70% and 30% liability would be upon the Chandigarh Housing Board.
Case Title: PARSVANATH DEVELOPERS LTD. Vs. GAGANDEEP BRAR (2023 INSC 370)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006380-006380 / 2021
