THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (SHRI GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS (I) LTDversusTHE GENERAL SECRETARY (SHRI AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYAL GARDEN RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

488                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT     12 S.C.R. 488
                              REPORTS                      [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A          THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (SHRI GRISH BATRA)
        M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS (I) LTD.
                                    v.
        THE GENERAL SECRETARY (SHRI AMOL MAHAPATRA)
         ROYAL GARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
B                    (Civil Appeal No. 2998 of 2010)
                             SEPTEMBER 28, 2021
        [HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
             Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.24A(1) – Opposite party
C     constructed apartments complex and offered them for sale in which
      purchasers were put in possession – complainant-purchasers of flats
      formed a registered association – On 15.11.2003, complainant
      entered into an agreement with the opposite party for taking over
      the maintenance of the apartment complex – In 2007, complainant
      filed a consumer complaint before the National Commission seeking
D     reliefs from the opposite party – National Commission allowed the
      complaint partly – Aggrieved opposite party filed instant appeal
      raising objection as to limitation and challenging the reliefs granted
      by National Commission – Held: s.24A(1) of the Act of 1986
      prescribes a period of limitation of two years from the date on which
E     the cause of action has arisen for the admission of a complaint –
      The opposite party handed over the work of maintenance of the
      complex to the complainant under Agreement dated 15.11.2003 –
      There were specific obligations yet to be performed by the opposite
      party in relation to certain services – Under the agreement, different
      timelines were prescribed for different obligations – Certain works
F     were continued up to the year 2005 – The affidavit in evidence
      filed by the opposite party and bills established that the cause of
      action continued at least till December, 2005 – Complaint before
      the National Commission was filed in February, 2007 – Therefore,
      National Commission was right in rejecting the objection relating
G     to limitation – National commission had appointed a local
      Commissioner to inspect the facilities relatable to the reliefs claimed
      in the complaint – Commissioner examined each one of the items
      and found that they were not operational on date – If all the services
      had been handed over in fully functional state, the opposite party

H
                                       488
THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS             489
  (I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYAL
                 GARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC.

should have taken an acknowledgment in writing from the                A
complainant – Hence, the reliefs granted by the National commission
in favour of the complainant warrant no interference – However,
possession of the common amenities were handed over to
complainant 18 years ago, it is impossible to compel opposite party
to make such facilities fully operational at this distance of time –
                                                                       B
Accordingly, in the interests of justice the order of the National
Commission modified in such a manner (i) that the complainant
Association shall receive in full and final settlement, the deposit
now lying in the Registry of this court, towards adequate
compensation for the reliefs that they are held entitled to by the
National Commission; and (ii) that the opposite party is directed      C
inter alia to hand over possession of the club house to the
complainant.
      Disposing of the appeals, the Court
       HELD : 1. Section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 prescribes a period of limitation of two years from the date      D
on which the cause of action has arisen for the admission of a
complaint, by the District Forum, State Commission or the
National Commission. In the case on hand, the opposite party
handed over the work of maintenance of the complex to the
complainant, under an Agreement dated 15.11.2003. As seen from         E
the preamble to the Agreement, the Agreement covered common
essential services such as generators, lifts, tubewell, water
softening plant, electric substation, cabling, fire fighting system,
pipelines, swimming pool, health and fitness centre, parking,
clubhouse, water supply, drainage/sewerage system, horticulture,
water tanks/pumps and lawns/parks. But different timelines were        F
prescribed under the said Agreement for different obligations
still remaining to be performed by the opposite party, towards
the purchasers of flats. The last of such timeline was indicated to
be 31.03.2004. [Paras 12,13][494-B-E]
      2. There were specific obligations to be performed by the        G
opposite party under the said Agreement, in relation to certain
services. Therefore, the cause of action for the complaint
continued even after the date of the Agreement namely
15.11.2003. The affidavit in evidence filed by the opposite party
and the aforesaid bills establish that the cause of action continued   H
490           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A     at least till December, 2005. The complaint before the National
      Commission was filed in February, 2007. Therefore, the National
      Commission was right in rejecting the objection relating to
      limitation. [Paras 14, 15, 17][494-E-F; 495-C, E]
             3. The reliefs granted by the National Consumer
B     Commission related to water softening plant, firefighting, second
      health club equipment, second swimming pool and space for club
      house in Eden Tower were based on the Report of the local
      Commissioner. The Commissioner appointed by the National
      Commission was an architect. The architect examined each one
      of the items and not only found that they were not operational on
C     date but also found, (i) that the equipment for the water softening
      plant was incomplete, ineffective and inadequate; (ii) that the
      firefighting equipments were not in operation due to incomplete
      commissioning of the system as a whole and that even the fire
      safety certificate dated 05.11.2001 noted down the same; (iii) that
D     while the first health club in the basement of the Tower Blue
      Heaven was fully furnished and functional, the second health club
      was not adequately furnished though the civil works are complete;
      (iv) that the second swimming pool was not complete and
      operational, as the filtration plant was non- functional and the
      pump was removed after installation and that even the change
E     rooms and showers have not been provided for; and (v) that in so
      far as the club house in the basement of Eden tower is concerned
      it was kept under lock and key by the opposite party and found to
      have been used as a store for keeping various building materials.
      Hence, this Court was not convinced that the reliefs granted by
F     National Commission in favour of the complainant warrant any
      interference. [Paras 19, 22][495-F-G; 496-D-G]
             4. However, the possession of the common amenities were
      handed over by the opposite party to the complainant Association
      18 years ago (under the Agreement dated 15.11.2003), it may
G     not be possible at this distance of time to compel the opposite
      party to make those facilities/systems at relief clauses 2, 3, 4, 5
      and 6, fully operational now. Therefore, interests of justice will
      be met if the order of the National Commission is modified in
      such a manner (i) that the complainant Association shall receive
      in full and final settlement, the deposit now lying in the Registry
H
THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS                    491
  (I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYAL
                 GARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC.

of this court, towards adequate compensation for the reliefs that             A
they are held entitled to by the National Commission; and (ii)
that the opposite party is directed to remove all building material
stored in the club house in the basement of Tower Eden and
hand over possession of the club house to the complainant.
[Paras 31, 32][498-E-H]
                                                                              B
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2998
of 2010.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2010 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Consumer
Complaint No.9 of 2007.                                                       C
      With
      Civil Appeal No.4085 of 2010.
       Rahul Sharma, Hardeep Singh Anand, Iqram Govind Singh, Advs.
for the Appellant.
     Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Advs. for the                D
Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
       1. Both the consumer (who was the complainant) as well as the          E
opposite party before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, have come up with these appeals, the former aggrieved by
the rejection of some of the reliefs sought and the latter, challenging the
reliefs granted in favour of the consumer.
      2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.           F
       3. A residential apartment complex was promoted by M/s Padmini
Infrastructure Developers (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
opposite party’), on a land allotted by New Okhla Development
Authority (‘NOIDA’ for short). It appears that the opposite party
constructed about 282 apartments and offered them for sale. The
                                                                              G
purchasers were put in possession during the period from 1998-2001,
but the completion certificate itself was issued only in December, 2001.
       4. The purchasers of flats formed themselves into an association
known as Royale Garden Residents Welfare Association and got it
registered on 30.09.2003 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
                                                                              H
492            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A            5. The Residents Welfare Association entered into an agreement
      on 15.11.2003 with the opposite party for taking over the maintenance
      of the apartment complex. Thereafter, the Residents Welfare Association
      ((hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’), filed a consumer
      complaint in Complaint No.9 of 2007 before the National Consumer
      Disputes Redressal Commission.
B
             6. The reliefs sought by the complainant before the National
      Commission were as follows:-
             “1. to pay the monthly maintenance charges for unsold flats
                   amounting to Rs. 9,05,810/-
C            2.    to complete the water softening plant and make it
                   operational.
             3.    to complete fire fighting equipments and make the same
                   operational and to obtain safe working certificate from
                   Fire Safety Department of NOIDA and handover the
                   same to the Complainant.
D
             4.    to furnish and equip a second health club for which
                   space is available in half portion of basement of Tower
                   Blue Heaven-2.
             5.    to complete a second swimming pool and get cement
                   plastered and white washed the stilts.
E
             6.    to provide furnished space for a, Club House in the
                   basement of Eden Tower which is existing but locked.
             7.    to get the rented portion of the terrace (roof) vacated
                   meant for the resident of Tower Eden of the Complainant
                   rented out by the Opposite Party to HUTCH (P) Limited
F                  and earned rent after on 15.11.2003 to be returned to
                   RWA with 24% interest.
             8.    not to sell or rent out the remaining flats about 45 till
                   the facilities mentioned above are provided to the
                   Complainant.
G            9.    to direct the OP not be sell stilt and open car parking
                   to future or present purchasers.
             10. to pay the cost to the Complaint and damages for
                   harassment mental torture, agony etc. caused to the
                   Complainant by the OP.
H
THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS                    493
  (I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYAL
  GARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

      11.    to pass any other or further orders which this August            A
             Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case
             to meet the ends of justice.”
        7. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party both on merits
and on the ground of limitation. The opposite party also claimed that the
Agreement dated 15.11.2003, entered into with the complainant contained       B
an arbitration clause and that whatever facilities/amenities were promised
at the time of promotion of the complex, have been put in place.
       8. The National Commission by its interim order dated 04.06.2008,
appointed a local Commissioner, to inspect the systems/facilities relatable
to the reliefs claimed in prayer clause nos. 2 to 6 of the complaint and to   C
submit a report. The said Commissioner submitted a report on 08.07.2008
after making a local inspection, in the presence of the representatives of
both the parties.
      9. Accepting the report of the local Commissioner and overruling
the contention of the opposite party regarding limitation, the National       D
Commission allowed the complaint partly by an order dated 05.01.2010.
The operative part of the order of the Consumer Commission reads as
follows:
      “Consequently, complaint is partly allowed with cost of Rs.
      25,000/- with direction to the opposite party to make the               E
      systems/facilities as at Sl. Nos. 2,3,4,5 and 6 of the prayer
      clause of the complaint operational/complete and to obtain
      and supply fire safety certificate of the complex to the
      complainant association within ten weeks from today. The
      opposite party will submit a report within two weeks thereafter
      from an independent Architect certifying that the systems/              F
      facilities in question have been fully made operational/
      complete by the opposite party. In the event of not making
      operational/complete the systems/facilities referred to above
      within the time allowed, the opposite party will pay through a
      demand draft the costs thereof as mentioned in aforesaid                G
      report dated 8.07.2008 within two weeks from after the expiry
      of 12 weeks time to the complainant association.”
      10. Aggrieved by the order of the National Commission, the
opposite party (builder), has come up with one appeal in C.A.No.2998
of 2010. Aggrieved by the refusal of the National Commission to grant
                                                                              H
494             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A     the reliefs as per prayer clause nos. 1, 7, 8, 9 & 10, the consumer-
      complainant has come up with another appeal in C.A.No.4085 of 2010.
            11. As observed earlier, the consumer complaint was contested
      by the opposite party both on merits and on the ground of limitation.
      Since it is easy to deal with the objection relating to limitation without
B     much ado, we shall take it up first.
             12. Section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
      prescribes a period of limitation of two years from the date on which the
      cause of action has arisen for the admission of a complaint, by the District
      Forum, State Commission or the National Commission. In the case on
C     hand, the opposite party handed over the work of maintenance of the
      complex to the complainant, under an Agreement dated 15.11.2003. As
      seen from the preamble to the Agreement, the Agreement covered
      common essential services such as generators, lifts, tube-well, water
      softening plant, electric substation, cabling, fire fighting system, pipelines,
      swimming pool, health and fitness centre, parking, club-house, water
D     supply, drainage/sewerage system, horticulture, water tanks/pumps and
      lawns/parks.
            13. But different timelines were prescribed under the said
      Agreement for different obligations still remaining to be performed by
      the opposite party, towards the purchasers of flats. The last of such
E     timeline was indicated to be 31.03.2004.
             14. There were specific obligations to be performed by the opposite
      party under the said Agreement, in relation to certain services. It may be
      useful in this regard to extract clauses 13, 14 and 19 of the Agreement
      as follows:-
F
                “13. The FIRST PARTY shall bear the contractual
             obligations of lift, generator, health club and equipments fitted
             at swimming pool. FIRST PARTY shall also bear the
             maintenance of these equipments till these contracts are
             concluded. FIRST PARTY shall bear any/all expenses on
G            maintenance/repair/replacement of these equipments.
                14. To FIRST PARTY shall make the softening plant and
             tube will in working condition and hand it over to SECOND
             PARTY separately on or before 31.1.2004. The FIRST PARTY
             shall also bring the fire fighting Equipments/generators in
H
THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS                     495
  (I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYAL
  GARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

      working condition and hand it over to the SECOND PARTY                   A
      separately on or before 31.12.2003.
                 …                     …                      …
         19. The FIRST PARTY shall construct the second Health
      Club and second swimming pool on or before 31.3.2004 and
      provide space for Club house in one of the basements for the             B
      residents as promised and assured at the time of selling the
      apartments on or before 31.12.2003.”
      15. Therefore, the cause of action for the complaint, as per the
above clauses continued even after the date of the Agreement namely
15.11.2003.                                                                    C

       16. In the affidavit filed by the local Manager of the opposite
party by way of evidence, it was admitted that certain works in relation
to fire-fighting equipment continued up to the year 2005. In fact, the
opposite party filed certain bills, which were dated 27.02.2005, 22.04.2005,
01.05.2005, 19.07.2005, 29.10.2005 and 12.12.2005, to show that the            D
opposite party was honest and diligent in carrying out their obligations.
        17. The affidavit in evidence filed by the opposite party and the
aforesaid bills establish that the cause of action continued at least till
December, 2005. The complaint before the National Commission was
filed in February, 2007. Therefore, the National Commission was right in       E
rejecting the objection relating to limitation.
       18. Coming to the merits, let us first take up the challenge to
correctness of the reliefs granted by the National Commission in favour
of the complainant, as the appeal filed by the opposite party appears to
be first in point of time.                                                     F
       19. The reliefs granted by the National Consumer Commission
related to water softening plant, fire-fighting, second health club
equipment, second swimming pool and space for club house in Eden
Tower. These reliefs were granted by the National Commission on the
basis of the Report of the local Commissioner.                                 G
        20. It appears that opposite party filed objections to the report of
the local Commissioner, contending inter alia, (i) that the water softening
plant was fully functional when the complex was taken over by the
complainant association; (ii) that any deficiency or defect relating to the
fire-fighting equipment is wholly attributable to the lack of maintenance      H
496             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A     and wrongful practices adopted by the complainant association; (iii) that
      they are not contractually liable to provide a second health club and the
      finding of the local Commissioner that one of the health clubs is fully
      functional and in good condition has to be accepted; and (iv) that the
      second swimming pool was completed and made operational by the
      opposite party, but what remained was the filling up of water after
B
      filtration, which was the job of the maintenance agency.
             21. Interestingly the affidavit of objections to the Report of the
      local Commissioner, filed on behalf of the opposite party on 06.08.2008,
      covered only the findings relating to, (i) water softening plant; (ii) fire-
      fighting equipment; (iii) second health club; and (iv) second swimming
C     pool, but did not cover the finding relating to the liability of the opposite
      party to provide furnished space for a club house in the basement of
      Eden Tower (relatable to relief no.6 of the complaint). However, the
      affidavit covered the claim of the complainant for maintenance charges,
      though the local Commissioner had nothing to do with the same.
D             22. The Commissioner appointed by the National Commission was
      an architect by name Amit Bahl. When he carried out the inspection, 4
      persons representing the opposite party, which included the advocate of
      the opposite party and the deponent to the affidavit of objections were
      present. The architect examined each one of the items and not only
E     found that they were not operational on date but also found, (i) that the
      equipment for the water softening plant was incomplete, ineffective and
      inadequate; (ii) that the fire-fighting equipments were not in operation
      due to incomplete commissioning of the system as a whole and that
      even the fire safety certificate dated 05.11.2001 noted down the same;
      (iii) that while the first health club in the basement of the Tower Blue
F     Heaven-2 was fully furnished and functional, the second health club
      was not adequately furnished though the civil works are complete; (iv)
      that the second swimming pool was not complete and operational, as the
      filtration plant was non- functional and the pump was removed after
      installation and that even the change rooms and showers have not been
G     provided for; and (v) that in so far as the club house in the basement of
      Eden tower is concerned it was kept under lock and key by the opposite
      party and found to have been used as a store for keeping various building
      materials.
            23. In the light of the aforesaid findings by an independent architect
H     appointed by the National Commission it is not open to the opposite
THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS                     497
  (I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYAL
  GARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

party to create a façade as though all essential services and amenities        A
were handed over in a fully functional state. If all the aforesaid services
had been handed over in a fully functional state, the opposite party should
have taken an acknowledgment in writing from the complainant. In the
alternative, the opposite party should have insisted upon an appropriate
provision in the Agreement dated 15.11.2003.
                                                                               B
      24. As noted by the Commissioner, even the fire safety certificate
dated 05.11.2001 states that though the majority of the equipment have
been satisfactorily installed, some equipment have been removed and
stored for security purposes and that the inference therefore is that the
system never got commissioned.
                                                                               C
      25. It is not impossible for an experienced architect to find out
whether the condition in which the aforesaid amenities and services
were found on the date of the inspection, was entirely due to lack of
maintenance or due to non-commissioning or incomplete commissioning.
        26. As noted by the National Commission, the affidavit of objections   D
filed on behalf of the opposite party to the Report of the local
Commissioner does not deal with the cost of estimates indicated by the
Commissioner in his Report. In addition, the affidavit of objections does
not even deal with the finding relating to the club house at Eden Tower,
said to have been kept under lock and key by the opposite party for
storing building materials. The very fact that at the time of inspection by    E
the local Commissioner, the possession of the club house in Eden Tower
was with the opposite party, goes to show that the opposite party was
still retaining control of at least some part or certain services in the
complex, perhaps due to the fact that there were about 45 unsold flats.
       27. In view of the above, we are not convinced that the reliefs         F
granted by the National commission in favour of the complainant warrant
any interference. Therefore, the appeal in C.A. No.2998 of 2010 is liable
to be dismissed.
       28. But before we do that, we should take note of the fact that as
per the operative portion of the order of the National Commission (which       G
we have extracted elsewhere) the opposite party is obliged to make the
systems/facilities at prayer clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the complaint, fully
operational/complete and they are also obliged to obtain a certificate of
completion from an independent architect. If the opposite party failed to
do so within the time stipulated by the National Commission, the opposite
                                                                               H
498             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A     party was obliged to pay the cost as estimated by the Commissioner in
      his Report dated 08.07.2008.
            29. The costs estimated by the local Commissioner in his Report
      dated 08.07.2008 are as follows :-

B




C            30. While ordering notice in C.A.No.2998 of 2010, on 29.03.2010,
      this Court granted stay of operation of the impugned order on condition
      that the opposite party–builder deposit Rs.60,00,000/- within 8 weeks.
      Subsequently, the order was modified on 14.05.2010, permitting the
      opposite party to deposit the sum in two equal instalments, the first
D     instalment before 22.05.2010 and 2nd instalment before 15.07.2010. It
      appears that the amount has been accordingly deposited and the amount
      has been invested in a Fixed Deposit which is renewed from time to
      time by the orders of this Court.
             31. In view of the fact that the possession of the common amenities
E     were handed over by the opposite party to the complainant Association
      18 years ago (under the Agreement dated 15.11.2003), it may not be
      possible at this distance of time to compel the opposite party to make
      those facilities/systems at relief clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, fully operational
      now. The cost of estimate which works out to approximately Rs.1.16
      crores, includes within itself the cost of fire fighting equipment and this
F     constitutes the major component (it works out to Rs. 83 lakhs). As seen
      from the Commissioner’s Report, the mistake committed by the opposite
      party was in removing a part of the equipment but not putting them
      back. This finding is as per the fire safety certificate. Therefore, it may
      not be appropriate to ask the opposite party to bear the entire burden.
G           32. Therefore, taking into account the overall picture, we are of
      the considered view that interests of justice will be met if the order of
      the National Commission is modified in such a manner (i) that the
      complainant Association shall receive in full and final settlement, the
      deposit now lying in the Registry of this court, towards adequate
      compensation for the reliefs that they are held entitled to by the National
H
THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS                     499
  (I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYAL
  GARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

Commission; and (ii) that the opposite party is directed to remove all         A
building material stored in the club house in the basement of Tower
Eden and hand over possession of the club house to the complainant.
        33. Now coming to the appeal CA No.4085 of 2010 filed by the
complainant against the refusal of the reliefs in prayer clause nos.1, 7, 8,
9 and 10, we think that the National Commission was justified in rejecting     B
those reliefs. The claim for monthly maintenance charges for the unsold
flats, amounting to Rs.9,05,810/- sought as per prayer clause no.1, was
made by the complainant on the basis of clause 10 of the Agreement
dated 15.11.2003 which reads as follows:
      “10. The FIRST PARTY agrees to pay to the SECOND PARTY                   C
      the monthly maintenance charges @ 50 paise per square feet
      for the unsold flats w.e.f. 16.11.2003. FIRST PARTY shall
      make the advance payment for 6 months within 7 days of
      signing of the agreement. Subsequently these charges will be
      paid yearly in advance.”
                                                                               D
       34. The averments relating to the relief claimed at prayer clause
no.1 are found in paragraph 16 of the complaint which reads as follows:-
      “16. That the amount of such advance payment upto
      31.12.2006 is Rs.619568/- approx. an advance for the year
      2007 comes to Rs.286242/-. Thus the OP has to make the                   E
      total payment amounting to Rs. 905810/- approx. with interest
      @ 24% for the delayed period for which OP had agreed vide
      agreement dated 15.11.2003 Clause No.6 last two lines.”
       35. Though the National Commission did not deal with the relief
claimed at prayer clause No.1 in sufficient detail and the National            F
Commission did not also provide cogent reasons for rejecting the relief,
we find that the complainant may not be entitled to the said relief. There
are two reasons as to why we say so. The first reason is that the
complainant did not provide detailed calculations about the plinth area of
the unsold flats, the period during which they remained unsold and the
manner in which the amount indicated in para 16 of the complaint was           G
arrived at. In any case the payments were to be made under clause 10
of the agreement, first within seven days of the agreement in respect of
the advance payment for six months and thereafter by way of annual
payments in advance. Therefore, a major portion of the claim for money
was obviously barred by limitation when the complaint was filed. Moreover,
                                                                               H
500             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 12 S.C.R.


A     the opposite party raised a dispute about the quantum and asserted in
      para 16 of their reply before the National Commission that what was
      due was only Rs.232750/-. Thus, the question became a disputed question
      of fact on which both parties did not lead sufficient evidence. Therefore,
      the rejection of the claim at prayer clause No.1 was legally correct.
B            36. The relief claimed at prayer clause no.8 is to direct the opposite
      party not to sell or rent out the unsold flats till the facilities mentioned in
      prayer clause nos.2 to 6 are provided. By its very nature, this relief is in
      the nature of an interim relief and, hence, was rightly rejected by the
      National Commission in the final judgment.
C            37. The relief claimed in prayer clause no.9 relates to stilt and
      open car parking. There was no evidence before the National Commission
      to grant such a relief and, hence, the refusal to grant the relief mentioned
      in prayer clause no.9 is in order.
             38. The claim for costs and damages for harassment, mental
D     torture, agony etc., made in prayer clause no.10 was not granted by the
      National Commission, and rightly so, in view of the fact that after handing
      over the common amenities under the Agreement dated 15.11.2003, the
      opposite party continued to carry out at least some works. This is why
      the complaint was lodged in 2007. Therefore, we find no reason to grant
      the relief prayed for in prayer clause no.10.
E
             39. That leaves us with the relief claimed in prayer clause no.7.
      This was for a direction to the opposite party to vacate the tenant
      occupying the terrace of Tower Eden. According to the complainant,
      the terrace of Tower Eden was let out by the opposite party to a company,
      leaving the residents of Tower Eden without a terrace for common use.
F     But the relief of eviction involves a third party and hence the National
      commission rightly left it to the complainant to pursue the remedy in an
      appropriate Forum.
             40. Thus, we find that the refusal of the National Commission to
      grant the reliefs mentioned in prayer clause nos.1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 warrant
G     no interference. Therefore, the appeal of the complainant in CA No.4085
      of 2010 is liable to be dismissed.
             41. Accordingly the appeal of the consumer-complainant in C.A.
      No. 4085 of 2010 is dismissed. The appeal of the builder-opposite party
      in C.A. No. 2998 of 2010 is partly allowed, modifying and substituting
H     the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
THE MD(GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS                       501
  (I) LTD. v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY (AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYAL
  GARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

dated 05.01.2010 in Consumer Complaint No. 9 of 2007, to the following           A
effect:
       The complainant shall be entitled to all told monetary
       compensation in a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs, now lying in deposit
       with the Registry of this court, together with the interest
       accrued thereon, in lieu of the reliefs sought in prayer clauses          B
       2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the complaint. The opposite party shall,
       within two weeks, remove all building material stored by them
       in the club house in the basement of Tower Eden and hand
       over possession of the club house to the complainant. The
       complaint shall stand dismissed in all other respects. No costs.
                                                                                 C
      42. The parties are to bear their respective costs in these appeals.
The Registry shall liquidate the fixed deposit standing to the credit of the
above appeal and make payment of the proceeds to the complainant
namely, Royal Garden Residents welfare Association. All interlocutory
applications if any are closed.
                                                                                 D
Devika Gujral                                             Appeals disposed of.




                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H