Holding

In the absence of a contractual delivery date and where time was not the essence, the delay does not constitute deficiency of service, and no interest or compensation is payable.

Summary

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) introduced a self‑financing housing scheme and allotted 15 HIG houses to Syndicate Bank, which paid the price for 11 of them by May 15, 1989. Delivery of four houses occurred in 1989‑90, but the remaining 11 were delayed until January‑March 1997 due to contractor disputes. Syndicate Bank filed a consumer complaint seeking completion, interest at 18% per annum, rent reimbursement and compensation for mental agony, alleging deficiency of service. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that BDA had promised delivery by December 1986, found a deficiency, and ordered interest. The Supreme Court set aside that order, holding that no specific delivery date was contractually stipulated, time was not the essence, the houses were eventually delivered at the agreed price, and the bank benefited from price appreciation; consequently, no interest or compensation was payable. The appeal was allowed and the Commission’s order was vacated, with directions to complete sale‑deed formalities.

Issues considered

Whether the Bangalore Development Authority is a 'service provider' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint is maintainable.
Whether the absence of a stipulated delivery date or the fact that time was not the essence of the contract precludes a finding of deficiency of service.
Whether interest at 18% per annum is payable for the delay in delivery of the houses.
Whether compensation for rent paid, mental agony and other damages is recoverable in the absence of proven loss or negligence.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 14, s. 21, s. 23, s. 2(o)

Subjects

Consumer Protection Actdevelopment authorityhousing schemedelay in deliveryinterest awardcompensationdeficiency of servicecontractual time not essenceself‑financing schemesale deed

Judgment

;
i
A
-1
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORI1Y
v.
SYNDICATE BANK

MAY 17, 2007 B
[P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN AND R. V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-ss. 2(/)(o), 14 and 23:
c
General Principles regulating grant of relief to a Consumer(applicant
for allotment) who complains of delay in delivery or non-delivery under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stated
" Interest-Grant of 18% commencing from the expiry of two years after D
the deposit of 'last instalment '-For delay in delivery ofpossession ofhouses/
i flats by Development Authority-Held: There was no specified date to deliver
houses by the Authority-Development Authority already delivered the house
during the pendency of the complaint at the agreed price-Allottee accepted
the same and also had the benefits of appreciation of price of the house-
E
Thus, order of the Commission granting interest not sustainable.

Compensation-Entitlement of-For delay in delivery tJj possession of
houses/flats by Development Authority-Held: No, since there was no specific
date for delivery ofpossession of the houses-Houses were constructed under
~
a self-financing scheme on 'No-Profit No-Loss basis" by using instalments/ F
amounts paid by allottees-Authority received instalments without interest
by way of adjustment in 1989-Delay in delivery was on account of the
contractor-However, houses were delivered in 1997 at a price agreed in
1986-Allottee had the benefit of appreciation of price of house-Thus, no
deficiency in service on the part of the Authority. G

Appellant-Bangalore Development Authority introduced a "Self
Financing Housing Scheme" for construction of HIG, MIG and LIG flats/
-'""
houses. Respondent-Syndicate Bank applied for allotment of 15 'HIG' Houses,
47 H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A 110 'MIG' units and 125 'LIG' units. Initially the tentative price ofHIG house
was fixed and thereafter, the price was revised. BOA called upon the
respondent to pay the revised amount in instalments and also informed the
respondent that the units would be ready for occupation in December, 1986.
However, the respondent did not pay the instalments. Thereafter, BOA informed
B the respondent that 15 HIG Houses had been allotted to respondent on
16.11987. Respondent surrendered allotment of 125 LIG units. By letter dated
15.5.1989, BDA recovered due towards the cost of 15 HIG Houses by
adjustment and appropriation from the amount which had became refundable j--·

to the respondent on account of surrender of allotment in regard to LIG units.
c BOA delivered 4 HIG houses in December, 1989 and May, 1990. The
completion of construction and delivery of remaining 11 HIG houses was
delayed. Respondent sought interest on the price paid on account of delay in
delivery of the HIG houses. However, appellant informed the respondent that
the delay was on 11ccount of the contractor raising a dispute and stopping the
"
work but assured that possession would be delivered immediately after F
D
completion. Respondent issued notice demanding performance of contract.
Respondent then filed a complaint under section 21 of Consumer Protection,
Act, 1986 claiming completion and due delivery of the remaining 11 HIG
houses; payment of interest; payment as reimbursement of rent paid by
respondent for 11 houses; and compensation for mental agony and harassment.
E During the pendency BOA delivered remaining HIG house in January/March
1997. Commission allowed the complaint holding that BOA had promised to
deliver the houses to the respondent by December 1986; that in spite of
respondent having made full payment and making repeated demands, 11 houses
were not delivered till the complaint was filed in 1995, thus there was ~
F deficiency of service on the part of BOA. It directed the appellant to pay interest ~

at 18% per annum on approximate price of HIG houses commencing from
the expiry of two years after the deposit last instalment up to date of handing
of over the possession. Hence the present appeal.

G Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. There is some vagueness in the order of the Commission,
in regard to the period of which interest is awarded. The amount with regard ).._

to the approximate price ofHIG houses was not paid in instalments as assumed ·
by the Commission. BOA recovered the due towards the cost 15 HIG Houses
H ·-
,.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1•. SYNDICATE BANK 49

i
by adjustment and appropriation from the amount which had became refundable A
to the respondent on account of surrender of allotment in regard to LIG units.
Such adjustment was made on 15.5.1989 and for all purpose, that is the date
of payment of price of the HIG Houses. As the houses were delivered in
January/March, 1997, the direetion issued by the Commission would mean
that BOA had to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 15.5.1991 to January/ B
March, 1997 which works out to about Rs. 55 lakhs.

(Para 11) (57-H; 58-A-CI
_/

1.2. Commission has neither referred to the relevant facts nor drawn
proper inferences. There is no basis for the finding that BDA had agreed to
deliver the houses by December, 1986 or the finding that no reason was shown
c
for the delay in delivery. The payment was only on 15.5.1989. Therefore,
delivery could not obviously be by the end of if reasonable period for
construction is to be reckoned as two years (as assumed by the Commission)
then the question of delay would arise only after 15.5.1991. The Commission
also assumed that mere delay automatically meant deficiency in service and
D
..,. in all the such cases, the allottee will be entitled to interest at 18% p.a. from
the date of payment till date of delivery. There cannot be uniform award of
interest at 18% p.a. in all cases and that in cases of complaints of deficiency
in service by a development authority relating to allotment plots/flats, the
principles laid down in Balbir Singh 's case should be applied. Therefore, the E
decision of the Commission under appeal, cannot be sustained.

(Para 12) (58-D-G)

1.3. The Development Authority delivered the house during the pendency
of the complaint at the agreed price, which was accepted by the allottee- F
complaint, the question of awarding any interest on the price by him from the
date of deposit to date of delivery of possession, does not arise. The allottee
who had the benefit of appreciation of price of the house, is not entitled to
interest on the price paid. In this case, the 11 houses were delivered in 1997
at the agreed prices. Thus, the order of the commission awarding interest at G
-f
18% per annum on the price of the houses is unsustainable and liable to be
set aside. [Para 13) [59-A-B]
....(
2.1. The loss caused to the respondent is the rental income which the
houses would have fetched if they had been delivered earlier from the agreed H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A due date to date of actual delivery of possession. Alternatively, it is the rent
\-
paid by the Respondent for the houses taken on lease due to non-availability
of the allotted houses. However, the respondent did not produce any document
to show that it paid Rs. 3000/- per month per house for similar houses between
1991 and 1997. Nor did it produce any evidence to show that Rs. 3000/- was
B the prevailing rent for similar houses. It is not the case of the respondent
that documentary e\•idence for payment of rent was not available. ~here ,.
documentary evidence ,was available, but not produced, obviously a mE?re
statement in the affidavit cannot be the basis for award of damages.
']-
(Para 14 and 15( (59-C-D; G-H)
c r
2.2. The brochure relating to the BDA scheme did not mention any
specific date for delivery of possession of the houses. No agreement was
:>-
entered into between the parties stipulating any time for performance or
delivery of houses. The only document on which reliance is placed by the
D respondent is a letter dated 22.8.1985 wherein BDA referred to the expected
date of completion of construction i.e., December 1986 while intimating the
revised cost of the HIG houses on account of escalation etc. and also the ...
instalment to be paid by the respondent. .(Para 16] (60-B-D]
. '·
2.3. The instalments were not paid and respondent itself was the ''
E defaulter. Nevertheless, BDA allotted 15 houses as per intimation dated
27.5.1987. In a self financing scheme, the instalments paid by the allottees
are used for construction. If an allottee does not pay the instalments, he cannot
obviously expect completion of construction. In this case, the payment was ~
I
received by BDA (without charging any interest) by way of adjustment on •
F 15.5.1989. Even ifthe reasonable period for construction is taken as two years,
,.....
-f
BDA had to explain the 'delay' only from 15.5.1991 and not from 1985 as ;
assumed by the Commission. BDA delivered four houses in time, that is in . r-
1989 and 1990. It did not deliver the remaining 11 Muses as its contractor ~
I
delayed ·execution of the work. When the respondent wrote letters in 1989, ).
1
G 1990, 1993 and 1994 and also got in touch with BDA officers, seeking I-
possession, BDA explained that the delay was on account of its contractor )--
stopping work and raising a dispute. BDA took necessary steps. It delivered
the houses in January/March, 1997. (Para 16) [60-C-H] ,I.._
t
H 2.4. Both parties-BOA as also the respondent proceeded on the basis t;
,.
I
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY i·. SYNDICATE BANK 51

that time was not essence of the contract. In a contract involving construction, A
time is not the essence of the contract unless specified Even when the
respondent wrote the letters in 1989, 1990, 1993 and 1994, it did not make
time for performance the essence of contract, nor fixed any reasonable time
for performance. The respondent did not also choose to terminate the contract,
obviously in view of the manifold increase in the value of the houses. For the B
first time, by notice dated 11.7.1994, it purported to make the time the essence,
but demanded delivery within an unreasonable period of one month and filed
j
the complaint on 4.2.1995. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent made
time the essence of contract, in a manner recognized in law. The devdopment
authority was constructing these houses under a self-financing scheme on C
'No-Profit No-Loss basis" by using the instalments/amounts paid by the
allottees. The houses were delivered in 1997 at a price agreed in 1986. By
1997, the value had gone up many times (more than 10 times according to
· .BDA). The respondent had the benefit of such rise in value. The respondent
also failed to prove any negligence on the part of BDA. In this factual D
background, there was no 'deficiency in service' on the part of BDA entitling
the respondent for any compensation by way of interest or otherwise
Consequently, the respondent is not entitled to any compensation.

(Para 17) (60-G-H; 61-A-C]
E
Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243;
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65; Haryana
Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar, [2005) 9 SCC 449 and Ghaziabad
Development Authority v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 113, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5462 of2002. F

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2002 of the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No. 21of1995.

Altaf Ahmad, Sr. Adv., S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar and Vijay G
Kumar for !he Appellant.

A.B. Dial, Sr. Adv., Sapna Sinha and Rajiv Nanda for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. l. This appeal by Special Leave is filed against
the order dated 11.04.2002, passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission ('Commission' for short) in O.P.No. 21 of 1995.

The Facts

B 2. The Banglore Development Authority (Appellant herein, 'BDA' for
short) introduced a "Self Financing Housing Scheme" for construction of
flats/houses. in Banglore in the year 1982. The said Schemt: contemplated
construction of three types of flats/houses categorized as Higher Income ~--

Group, Middle Income Group, and Low Income Group ('HIG', 'MIG', and 'LIG'
for short). Under the said scheme an applicant for allotment was required to
C make an initial deposit of 15% of the cost of the unit and pay the balance
in eight quarterly instalments of l 0% and the last instalment of 5%.

3. Syndicate Bank ('Respondent' herein) made an application dated
17. 7.1982 for allotment of 250 flats/houses under the said scheme, that is, 15
D 'HIG' Houses, 110 'MIG' units and 125 'LIG' units. BDA registered the request
for allotment of 15 HIG Houses, vide confirmation letter dated 20.8.1984. This
appeal relates to delay in delivery of 11 HIG houses at R.M. V. Extension,
Bangalore.

4. BDA had. initially fixed the tentative price of a HIG house as
E Rs.2,85,000/-. The price was revised to Rs.4.75 Jakhs per unit (Rs.5.S lakhs in
respect of corner units). By letter dated 22.08.1985, BDA informed the
respondent about the revision of price of HIG Houses from Rs.2.85 lakhs to
4.75 lakhs per unit. BDA also indicated the total amount due in respect of 15
HIG Houses and required the Respondent to pay the said amount in
installments as shown in the Annexure thereto. BDA also informed the
F Respondent that the units would be ready for occupation in December, 1986.
As respondent did not pay the instalments, BDA sent a letter dated 20. l 0.1986
demanding payment. By Jetter dated 27.5.1987, BDA informed Respondent
that 15 Houses (including three corner houses) had been allotted to Respondent
on 16.1.1987 and furnished the numbers of the· houses allotted.
G
5. A sum ofRs.98,85,210/- paid by the Respondent towards the cost of
LIG units became refundable to respondent, on account of surrender of
allotment of the 125 LIG units. The cost Of 15 HIG houses was Rs.73.5 lakhs
(that is, three corner units at the rate of Rs.5.5 Iakhs each and 12 other onits
at the rate of Rs.4.75 lakhs each). The respondent had paid a sum of
H Rs.l 9,~3,925/- in advance towards the cost of the 15 H.l.G. houses and the
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SYNDICATE BANK (RAVEENDRAN, J.) 53

balance due was Rs.54,I6,075/-. By letter dated I5.5.1989, BDA adjusted and A
·(
appropriated the said sum ofRs.54,I6,075/- (due in respect of I5 HIG Houses)
and a sum of Rs.2I,66,250/- (due in respect of MIG Units), from out of
Rs.98,85,2 I 0/- paid towards LIG units, and refunded the balance of ~- I

Rs.23,02,885/- to the Respondent. Thus it would be seen that the cost of
H.l.G. units was received by BDA only on I5.05.I989.
B
6. BDA delivered 4 HIG houses in December, I989 and May, I990. The
completion of construction and delivery of remaining I I H.1.G. houses (in
RMV Extension, Bangalore) was delayed. By letters dated 29.I l.1989,
I 7.0 I. I 990, 9. 7. I 993 and I I. I. I 994, the Respondent pointed out the delay in
delivery of the HIG houses and requested for early delivery of possession of
the houses. Respondent also demanded interest on the price paid, at the bank
c
rate from OI.Ol.1986 till date the delivery of the houses apart from reimbursement
of the losses incurred on account of the non-delivery. When the officers of
the respondent met the officers of BDA personally to enquire about the I I
Houses, they were informed that the delay was on account of the contractor
(Mis. Khoday Engineering) raising a dispute and stopping the work in respect D
of part of the project, and assured that possession will be delivered immediately
. -t after completion. The Respondent issued a final notice dated 11.07.1994
through counsel demanding performance within one month. When BDA failed,
the respondent filed a complaint before the Commission under section 21 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('Act' for short).
E
Claim, defence and the decision

7. The Respondent sought the following reliefs against BDA, in its
complaint:

(a) Completion and due delivery of the remaining 11 HIG houses; F
(b). Payment of Rs. l ,98,40,930173 by way of interest on the sum of
Rs.53 lakhs being the price of the said I I houses from 01.01.1986
to 31.12.1994 (the interest claimed at the bank rate varying from
I6.5% to 24.25% P.A. compounded quarterly);
G
(c) Payment of Rs. 16.5 lakhs as reimbursement of the rent paid by
the Respondent for I I houses at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per house
per month from 01.01.1987 to 3 I .12. I 994 (Note : Though for 96
j months the amount works out Rs.3 I ,68,000/-, claim was restricted
to Rs.16.5 lakhs which is the rent for 11 houses for 50 months);
H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A (d) Payment of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and
harassment; \

(e) Payment of future interest at 19.5% P.A. on Rs. 53,00,000/- plus
Rs.33,000/- per month by way of reimbursement of the rent, from
01.01.1995 till delivery of possession
B 8. BDA resisted the claim both on the question of maintainability, as
also merits. In brief, the contentions were :

(a) It was not a service pr,ovider nor a seller of goods and the
respondent was not a 'consumer' and therefore the complaint ~·

under the Act was not maintainable.
c
(b) The contract did not stipulate any period for completion and
delivery. Being a building contract, time was not the essence of
the contract. The project related to construction of 558 HIG
Houses. 490 houses were completed during 1989. Th:: contractor
- Mis. KhoJay Engineering, raised a dispute and delayed the
D work relating to the remaining 68 houses (including 11 houses to
be delivered to the respondent). After making all possible efforts
to persuade the contractor to take up and complete the work, it ....
rescinded the contract with the contractor by Resolution dated
15.2.1995 and took steps to get the work completed through an.
E alternative agency. The delay was thus for reasons wholly beyond
its control and unintentional, and there was no breach.
(c) It would complete and deliver the 11 houses within a short time
at the agreed price, though price of the houses had risen by 10
times.
F (d) As it was executing the self financing housing scheme on 'no
profit no loss' basis, it should not be burdened with any finandal
liability for any delay.
(e) Even if it was treated as a service provider and the complaint was
held to be maintainable, as there was no negligence or deficiency
G in service on its part, it was not liable to pay any interest or
compensation.

9. During the pendency of the complaint before the commission, BDA
delivered one HIG house on 21.1.1997 and remaining 10 HIG houses on L
12.3.1997. The Respondent thus secured the main relief sought in the complaint.
H
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY''· SYNDICATE BANK [RAVEENDRAN, J.) 55
What remained was the claim for interest and compensation. Parties led A
evidence by way of affidavits. Neither party sought leave to cross-examine
the witness (deponent) of the other party. The Commission by order dated
11.04.2002 allowed the complaint. It held :

(a) BDA had promised to deliver the houses to the Respondent by
December, 1986. B
(b) In spite of respondent having made full payment and making
repeated demands, 11 houses were not delivered till the complaint
../ was filed in 1995. Thus there was deficiency of service on the
part of BOA.
(c) BDA had not placed any material on record to show why the c
houses could not be completed and delivered between 1985 to
1991. The complainant was in no way concerned with the dispute
between BDA and its contractor and the consequential delay.
Even though the 11 houses were delivered in 1997 after the
complaint, BDA was guilty of deficiency in rendering service.
D
In view of the said findings, following its decision in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar
[Revision Petition No. 1197/1998 dated 31.8.2001], it directed the appellant to
pay interest at 18% per annum on Rs.53,00,000/- (the approximate price of 11
HIG Houses) commencing from the expiry of two years after the deposit of
last instalment of Rs.53 lakhs up to date of handing over the possession. The E
said order is challenged in this appeal.

The principles

10. Where a Development Authority forms layouts and allots plots/flats
(or houses) by inviting applications, the following general principles regulate F
i the granting of relief to a consumer (applicant for allotment) who complains
of delay in delivery or non-delivery and seeks redressal under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 ('Act' for short) - [vide : Lucknow Development Authority
v. MK Gupta [1994] I SCC 243, Ghaziabad Development Authorityv. Balbir
Singh, [2004] 5 SCC 65, and Haryana J)evelopment Authority v. Darsh Kumar
[2005] 9 SCC 449, as also Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of G
India, [2000] 6 SCC 113:

(a) Where the development authority having received the full price,
J
does not deliver possession of the allotted plot/flat/house within the
time stipulated or within a reasonable time, or where the allotment is
H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A cancelled or possession is refused without any justifiable cause, the
allottee is entitled for refund of the amount paid, with reasonable
interest thereon from the date of payment to date ofrefund. In addition,
the allottee may also be entitled to compensation, as may be decided
with reference to the facts of each case.

B (b} Where no time is stipulated for performance of the contract (that
is for delivery), or where time is not the essence of the contract and
the buyer does not issue a notice making time the essence by fixing
a reasonable time for performance, if the buyer, instead of rescinding
the contract on the ground of non-performance, accepts the belated
performance in terms of the contract, there ·is no question of any
c breach or payment of damages under the general law governing
contracts. However, if some statute steps in and creates any statutory
obligations on the part of the development authority in the contractual
field, the matter will be governed by the provisions of that statute.

(c) Where ari alternative site is offered or delivered (at the agreed
D price) in view of its inability to deliver the earlier allotted plot/flat/
house, or where the delay in delivering possession of the allotted
plot/flat/house is for justifiable reasons, ordinarily the allottee will not
be entitled to any interest or compensation. This is because the buyer
has the benefit of appreciation in value.
E
(d) Though the relationship betWeen Development Authority and an
applicant for allotment is that of a seller and buyer, and therefore·
governed by law of contracts, (which does not recognise mental
agony and suffering as a head of damages for breach), compensation
can be awarded to the consumer under the head of mental agony and
F suffering, by applying the principle of Administrative Law, where the
seller being a statutory authority acts negligently, arbitrarily or +
capriciously.

(e) Where an alternative plot/flat/house is allotted and delivered, not
at the original agreed price, but by charging current market rate which
G is much higher, the allottee will be entitled to interest at a reasonable
rate on the amount paid towards the earlier allotment, from the date
of deposit to date of delivery of the alternative plot/flat/house. In
addition, he may be entitled to compensation also, determined with
reference to the facts of the case, if there are no justifiable reasons
for non-delivery of the first allotted plot/flat/house.
H
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'" SYNDICATE BANK [RA VEENDRAN, J.] 57
.... (t) Where the plot/flat/house has been allotted at a tentative or A
provisional price, subject to final determination of price on completion
of the project (that is acquisition proceedings and development
activities), the Development Authority will be entitled to revise or
increase the price. But where the allotment is at a fixed price, and a
higher price or extra payments are illegally or unjustifiably demanded
and collected, the allottee will be entitled to refund of such excess B
with such interest, as may be determined with reference to the facts
of the case.
_,
{g) Where full payment is made and possession is delivered, but title
deed is not executed without any justifiable cause, the allottee may
be awarded compensation, for harassment and mental agony, in addition
c
to appropriate direction for execution and delivery of title deed.

{h) Where the allotment relates to a flat/house and construction is
incomplete or not in accordance with the agreed specifications, when
it is delivered, the allottee will be entitled to compensation equivalent
D
to the cost of completing the building or rectifying the defects.

(i) The quantum of compensation to be awarded, if it is to be awarded,
will depend on the facts of each case, nature of harassment, the
period of harassment and the nafure of arbitrary or capricious or
negligent action of the authority which led to such harassment.
E
G) While deciding whether the allottee is entitled to any relief and in
moulding the relief, the following among other relevant factors should
be considered : (i) whether the layout is developed on 'no profit no
loss' basis, or with commercial or profit motive; (ii) whether there is
any assurance or commitment in regard to date of delivery of
F
possession; (iii) whether there were any justifiable reasons for the
delay or failure to deliver possession; (iv) whether the complainant
has alleged and proved that there has been any negligence,
shortcoming or inadequacy on the part of the developing authority or
its officials in the performance of the functions or obligations in
regard to delivery; and (v) whether the allottee has been subjected to G
avoidable harassment and mental agony.

Whether Respondent is entitled to interest?
)
11. At the outset, we may notice that there is some vagueness in the
order of the Commission, in regard to the period for which interest is awarded. H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.
~
A The Commission has awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum commencing
...
from the expiry of two years after the deposit of 'last instalment' of Rs.53
lakhs. The sum of Rs.53 lakhs was not paid in instalments as assumed by the
Commission. BDA recovered Rs.54,16,075/- due towards the cost of 15 HIG
Houses by adjustment and appropriation from the amount which had became
refundable to the Respondent on account of surrender of allotment in regard
B to LIG units. Such adjustment was made on 15.5.1989 and for all purposes,
that is the date of payment of price of the HIG Houses. As the houses were
delivered in January/March, 1997, the direction issued by the Commission
would mean that BOA had to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from ,._
15.5.1991 to January/March, 1997 which works out to about Rs.55 lakhs.
..;
c Because of the vagueness in the direction regarding date of commencement
of interes~ the Respondent contended that interest should be calculated from
the expiry of two ye¥s from the date of payment of last instalment, which was
in December, 1985 (which was in respect of LIG units). Respondent contends
that if interest is so calculated the amount due as interest would be Rs.87.89
lakhs. Be that as it may.
D
12. The Commission has neither referred to the relevant facts nor drawn
proper inferences. There is no basis for the finding that BDA had agreed to
deliver the houses by December, 1986 or the finding that no reason· was
,.
shown for the delay in delivery. The allotment of 15 HIG Houses identified
by House numbers was only by resolution dated 16.1.1987 and communicated
E to Respondent on 27.5.1987. The payment was only on 15.5.1989. Delivery
could not, therefore, obviously be by the end of December, 1986. If reasonable
period for construction is to be reckoned as two years (as assumed by the
Commission), then the question of delay would arise only after 15.5.1991. The
Commission also assumed that mere delay automatically meant deficiency in
F service and in all such cases, the allottee will be entitled to interest at 18%
per annum from the date of payment till date of delivery by relying on its +
decision in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar,. The decision of the Commission in HUDA
v. Darsh Kumar, was held to be unsustainable by this Court, on appeal in
HUDA v. Darsh Kumar, [2005] 9 SCC 449. This Court held that there cannot
be uniform award of interest at 18% per annum in all cases and that in cases
G of complaints of deficiency in service by a development authority relating to
allotment of plots/flats, the principles laid down in Balbir Singh (Supra)
should be applied. Therefore, the decision of the Commission under appeal,
based on its earlier decision in Darsh Kumar, cannot be sustained. }

H 13. As already noticed, where the grievance is one of delay in delivery
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SYNDICATE BANK [RA VEENDRAN, J.) 59
of possession, and the Development Authority delivers the house during the A
pendency of the complaint at the agreed price, and such delivery is accepted
by the allottee-complainant, the question of awarding any interest on the
price paid by him from the date of deposit t9 date of delivery of possession,
does not arise. The allottee who had the benefit of appreciation of price of
the house, is not entitled to interest on the price paid. In this case, the 11
houses were delivered in 1997 at the agreed prices (Rs. 5.5 lacs per comer HIG B
House and Rs.4.75 lacs per other HIG Houses). In view of it, the order o~ the
Commission awarding interest at 18% per annum on the price of the houses
__, is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Whether respondent is entitled to any compensation?
c
14. This leads us to the next question as to whether the Respondent
is entitled to any compensation, to make good the loss caused to him on
account of the delay in delivery. The loss is the rental income which the
houses would have fetched if they had been delivered earlier from the agreed
._ due date to date of actual delivery of possession. Alternatively, it is the rent p
paid by the Respondent for the houses taken on lease due to non-availability
of the allotted houses. The Respondent contends that it is entitled to
reimbursement of the rents paid by it in respect of 11 houses, on account of
the delay on the part of BOA in delivering the houses. It was submitted that
even if a reasonable time of two years is provided for construction from the
deemed date of payment (15.5.1989), BOA would be liable to compensate the E
Respondent for the rent paid by it for 11 houses from 15.5.1991 till January/
March, 1997. Respondent alleged that it had to pay a rent of Rs.3000/- per
house or Rs.33000/- for 11 Houses, per month, due to the non-delivery of 11
HIG Houses. The Respondent submitted that the compensation payable would
therefore be around Rs.23 lakhs; and that as it had restricted its claim to F
Rs.16,50,000/- in the complaint under this head, the said amount may be
awarded as compensation.

15. The Respondent did not produce any document to show that it paid
Rs.3,000/- per month per house for similar houses between 1991and1997. Nor
did it produce any evidence to show that Rs.3000/- was the prevailing rent d
for similar houses. It is not the case of the Respondent that documentary
evidence for payment of rent was not available. Where documentary evidence
was available, but not produced, obviously a mere statement in the affidavit
J cannot be the basis for award of damages.

16. The more serious issue is whether the facts and circumstances H
60 Sl,JPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A warrant a finding of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of BOA
necessitating award of compens~tion. The brochure relating to the BOA
--
scheme did not mention any specific date for delivery of possession of the
houses. No agreement .was entereCJ into between the parti~s stipulating any
time for performance or deliverylof houses. The only document on which
B reliance is placed by the respondent is a letter dated 22.8.1985 wherein BOA
makes a reference to the expected date of completion of construction while
intimating the revised cost of the HIG houses on account of escalation etc.
The said letter stated that the total cost of 15 HIG houses would be Rs.7125000/
- and after adjustment ofRs.1068750/-, the balance ofRs.6036250/- was payable
in seven bi-monthly instalments from November, 1985 to December, 1986, (the
C first six instalments being Rs.862327/- and the last instalment being Rs.862288/
-). It also incidentally ·stated that the houses would be ready for occupation
in December, 1986. The instalments were not paid and respondent itself was
the defaulter. Nevertheless, BOA allotted 15 houses as per intimation dated
27.5.1987. In a self financing scheme, the instalments paid by the allottees are
used for construction. If an allottee does not pay the instalments, he cannot
D obviously expect completion of construction. In this case, the payment was
received by BOA (without charging any interest) by way of adjustment on
15.5.1989. Even if the reasonable period for construction is taken as two years,
BOA had to explain-the 'delay' only from 15.5.1991 and not from 1985 as
assumed by the Commission. BOA delivered four houses in time, that is in
E 1989 and 1990. It did not deliver the remaining 11 houses, as its contractor.
delayed execution of the work. It may be mentioned that the project contemplated
construction of 558 HIG houses and the work got stuck only in regard to 68
houses (including the 11 houses to be delivered to the Respondent). When
the respondent wrote letters in 1989, 1990, 1993 and 1994 and also got in
touch with BOA officers, seeking possession, BOA explained that the delay
F was on account of its contractor (Mis Khoday Engineering) stopping work
and raising a dispute. BOA took necessary steps, and even sought government ·+
intervention, to persuade the contractor to proceed with the work. Having
failed in its effort, it ultimately cancelled the contract with the contractor and
got the work completed through an alternative agency and immediately after
G completion, delivered the houses in January/March, 1997.

17. We find that both parties - BOA as also the Respondent proceeded
on the basis that time was not the essence of the contract. In a contract
involving construction, time is not the essence of the contract unless specified.
Even when the respondent wrote the letters dated29.l l.1989, 17.1.1990, 9.7.1993
H and 11.1.1994, it did not make time for performance the essence of contract,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SYNDICATE BANK [RA VEENDRAN, J.) 61

1
nor fix any reasonable time for perfonnance. The Respondent did not also A
choose to tenninate the contract, obviously in view of the manifold increase
in the value of the houses. For the first time, by notice dated 11.7.1994, it
purported to make the time the essence, but demanded delivery within an
unreasonable period of one month and filed the complaint on 4.2.1995. Thus,
it cannot be said that the Respondent made time the essence of contract, in
a manner recognized in law. We also find that the development authority was B
constructing these houses under a self-financing scheme on 'No-Profit No-
Loss basis' by using the instalments/amounts paid by the allottees. The
houses were delivered in 1997 at a price agreed in 1986. By 1997, the value
had gone up many times (more than IO times according to BDA). The
Respondent had the benefit of such rise in value. The respondent also failed c
to prove any negligence on the part of BOA. In this factual background, we
find it difficult to hold that there was 'deficiency in service' on the part of BDA
entitling the respondent for any compensation by way of interest or otherwise.
Consequently, the respondent is not entitled to any compensation.

.18. We may also note that the respondent had also written letters date.d D
27 .12.2005 and 25. l.2006 during the pendency of these appeals stating that
_._
if the sale deeds were execute.din respect of these 11 houses, it will withdraw
its claim against BDA. The sale deeds were not executed and the matter. is
kept pending in view of the pendency of the dispute.

Conclusion E

19. Before concluding, it is necessary to refer to one more contention
urged by BOA. It contended that when a person enters into a contract for
purchasing a house (land with building), from a Development Authority, the
allottee does not 'hire or avail of a sel'Vice' and is not a 'consumer' under the
F
"i Act. It is contended that where the contract is for sale of a house (land with
building) as contrasted from a contract for construction of a house by a
contractor with the site-owner, the seller is not a service provider, ~nd the
purchaser is not a consumer; and sale of land with a building constructed by
a development authority, involves neither sale of goods, nor hiring/availing
of any services. BDA had specifically raised this contention before the G
Commission as a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the
complaint. It appears that this contention was not pressed before the
Commission nor raised as a specific ground in the special leave petition, in
view of the decision of this Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M
K Gupta, (Supra). In that case, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that
H
..-
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R. \

A where a development authority undertakes to construct buildings or allot ._
houses or building sites either as amenity or as benefit, it amounts to rendering
of a service and will be covered by the expression 'service made available to
potential users' referred to in section 2(o) of the Act. But this Court did not
examine or deal with the question whether a contract for sale of a house
B premises, (that is site with a constructed house), as contrasted from a contract
of construction amounted to 'providing a service of any description to a
potential user including housing construction'. Be that as it may. Though
there appears to be some logic in the contention of BDA, we do not propose
\-.
to decide the issue, as we are allowing this appeal on other grounds, and as
this contention was not specifically pressed before the Commission. We leave
C this question open for decision in an appropriate case.

20. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set asiqe the order
dated 11.4.2002 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
As the main prayer for completion and delivery of the houses was complied
with during the pendency of the complaint, and as we have held that respondent
D is not entitled to interest or compensation, the complaint is disposed of with
a direction to BDA to complete the process of execution and registration of
sale deed/s in respect of the houses without.claiming any extra cost, within
three months from today. The cost of stamp duty at!d registration in respect
of such sale deeds will be borne by the respondent. Parties to bear their
E respective costs.

N.J. Appeal allowed.