Selected for UPSC in 2012 and now finally order of appointment is made

 1

ITEM NO.16               COURT NO.5               SECTION XIV

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 25341/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-05-2022

in WP(C) No. 5591/2021 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New

Delhi)

UNION OF INDIA                                     Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

MACCHITA MALIK & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.161457/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY

IN FILING and IA No.161458/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE

IMPUGNED  JUDGMENT  and  IA  No.161456/2022-CONDONATION  OF  DELAY  IN

REFILING /  CURING THE DEFECTS)

Date : 21-11-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG

Ms. Kiran Bala Sahay, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv.

Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.

Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv.

Ms. Ayushi Nagar, Adv.

                   Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR   

For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.

                   Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Arup Sinha, Adv.

Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Arun Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Yogesh Aggarwal, Adv.

Nazish Fatima, Adv.

                   

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                             O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Having  heard  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respective

parties and considering the fact that earlier respondent No.1 did

clear the examination except the medical and nothing is on record

2

that communication dated 27.04.2013 was served upon respondent No.1

by which respondent No.1 was alleged to have been communicated to

appear  before  the  Medical  Board  and  in  the  peculiar  facts  and

circumstances  of  the  case,  we  direct  that  let  respondent  No.1

appear before the Medical Board and on the basis of the report of

the Medical Board, the case of respondent No.1 be considered for

appointment.  

If the respondent is found to be medically fit, his case may

be  considered  for  appointment,  however,  at  the  same  time,

respondent No.1 shall be appointed from the date on which he is

found  to  be  medically  fit  and  he  is  actually  appointed.  Meaning

thereby, he shall not be entitled to any other benefits until he is

actually appointed. 

The aforesaid order is passed considering the fact that for

the recruitment of 2012, he approached the Central Administrative

Tribunal in the year 2021 only.

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of

three months from today. 

With this, the present Special Leave Petition stands disposed

of. 

Pending application stands disposed of. 

(R. NATARAJAN)                                  (NISHA TRIPATHI)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Luxury Option not maintainable; complainant is entitled for delayed compensation @ 6% interest till the offer of possession: NCDRC

 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

CONSUMER CASE NO. 51 OF 2019

1. NEHA SOOD At Present:- Flat No-1401, Dosti Ambrosia, Dosti Acres, Antop Hills, Wadala East, Mumbai - 400037 Maharashtra	...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED (Through its Directors) R/o 306-308, 3rd Floor, Square One, C-2, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi - 110017	...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,MEMBER

For the Complainant :

Mr. Dhruv Gautam, Advocate

For the Opp.Party :

Mr. Arvind Gupta, Advocate

Dated : 17 Nov 2022

ORDER

1.      Heard counsel for the parties.  2.      Above complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of Flat no. PGN-02-0806 in the project ‘Palm Gardens’, Sector-83, Gurgaon, (ii) pay Rs.7212562/- as compensation for delay in handing over possession, (iii) pay interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed compensation, (iv) pay pendent lite future interest @ 12% per annum, (v) pay Rs.100000/- as litigation cost and (vi) other relief which may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.   3.      The complainant has stated that the opposite party was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. In the year 2010, the opposite party launched a group housing project in the name of ‘Palm Gardens’ at Sector-83, Gurgaon. The complainant, who was in need of a house, booked a flat and deposited the booking amount on 06.10.2011. The opposite party issued an allotment letter dated 27.10.2011 allotting Unit no. PGN-02-0806 size 1900 sq. ft. for basic sale price of Rs.9310000/- and executed Buyers’ Agreement on 28.11.2011 in respect of the aforesaid unit. In Buyers’ Agreement, the basic sale price has been revised to Rs.9500000/-. The mode of payment was “construction linked payment plan”. As per demand, the complainant deposited Rs.11066735/- till 01.07.2017. As per clause 10(a) of the Agreement, possession had to be delivered within 36 months from the date of start of construction with grace period of three months. Due date of possession expired in August 2015 but the opposite party neither completed the construction nor offered possession of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint was filed for possession, delayed compensation etc. In IA/6601/2020, the complainant stated that the opposite party offered the luxury options namely (i) split air conditioners in all the rooms, (ii) modular kitchen with chimney and hob, (iii) imported marble in master bathroom & (iv) imported sanitary & CP fittings (Kohler or equivalent) and its charges were included in the basic sale price but it has not been provided. She prayed that the opposite party be directed either to provide the luxury options or to refund a sum of Rs.1235000/- towards it.  4.      The opposite party filed its written reply and contested the matter.  Material facts relating to the project, allotment of unit no. PGN-02-0806 size 1900 sq. ft. to the complainant and deposits made by her have not been disputed.  However, it has been disputed that the luxury option was offered to the complainant due to mistake. It has been denied that its prices were included in the basic sale price. It has been stated that for force majeure circumstances, construction was delayed and could not be completed on due date as per the Agreement. In Affidavit of Evidence of Rajendra Prasad, the opposite party has stated that after obtaining the occupancy certificate on 17.10.2019, the complainant was offered possession vide letter dated 19.11.2019. 5.      The complainant filed rejoinder reply and Affidavit of Evidence.  Opposite party has also filed Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of admission/denial of documents of Rajendra Prasad. Both the parties filed short synopsis of arguments.  6.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. In order to justify the claim of the luxury options, the counsel for the complainant, on the basis of the allotment to her mother of unit no. PGN-03-1504 submitted that her mother was charged for lesser rate of the land in the same project as she was not given luxury option. We have examined the allotment letters of both i.e. of the complainant and her mother. We find that the complainant was allotted the unit at the basic rate of Rs.5000/- per sq. ft. while her mother was allotted unit at the basic rate of Rs.5212/- per sq. ft. As such, the argument in this respect is not substantiated. Otherwise also, perusal of the slip pasted on the Agreement shows that it was merely an option and not a free offer. If any allotte opt for luxury option, he has to pay for it. No separate charges have been paid by the complainant for the luxury options. Therefore, claim for luxury options is not maintainable.  7.      The counsel for the complainant submitted that as per clause-10 (a) of the agreement dated 28.11.2011, possession had to be delivered within 36 months from the date of start of construction with grace period of three months and due date of possession expired in August 2015. The possession was offered on 19.11.2019. Relying upon judgment of three members Bench of this Commission in CC/423/2016 Altaf Ahmed Lal & Anr. Vs. M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & other connected matters, decided on 11.10.2021, in respect of the same project, he claimed delayed compensation in the form of interest @8% per annum on the deposits. 8.      Section 71 of the Contract Act, 1872 prescribes for compensation for breach of the contact, which amounts to actual loss suffered by the party due to such breach. In the cases of delay in delivery of flat, the allottee is getting flat with appreciated value and loss is only of the rent. Supreme Court in Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limited Vs. Manisha Balkrishna Kulkarni & Anr. (2020) 11 SCC 699, R.V. Prasannakumaar & Ors. Vs. Mantri Castles Private Limited & Anr., (2020) 14 SCC 769 and Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana & Ors. Vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 16 SCC 512, held that fair delayed compensation would be interest @ 6% per annum on the deposit. Although the judgment of this Commission is in respect of same project but it is not between the same parties. So for as binding precedent is concerned, judgment from Supreme Court has an overriding effect over contrary judgement of any other sub-ordinate court or tribunal. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for delayed compensation in the form of interest @ 6% per annum on her deposit from due date of possession till the offer of possession.  ORDER           The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to hand over possession as per letter dated 19.11.2019 to the complainant within a period of six weeks. The opposite party shall also prepare a fresh statement of account in respect of delayed compensation in the form of interest @ 6% per annum on the deposit of the complainant, from September 2015 till 19.11.2019. If any amount is payable to the complainant, it shall also be paid within the same period. If any amount is payable by the complainant, she will pay it within one month of communication of statement of account. After completing the documentations, the opposite party shall execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant within a period of one month, thereafter.

......................J

RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

DR. INDER JIT SINGH

MEMBER