Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from consumer complaints filed by purchasers against a builder for non-execution of deeds of conveyance despite receiving substantial payments under sale agreements. The purchasers filed two complaint cases before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, alleging that the builder and another respondent had not executed and registered the deeds after receiving payments. The District Forum directed the builder to execute the deeds upon receipt of balance consideration. The State Commission reversed this decision, accepting the builder's argument about multiple agreements and possible foul play. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission then reversed the State Commission's order, restoring the District Forum's decision with modifications, including interest on the balance amount. The builder appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues of limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, non-compliance with Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and seeking adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The builder argued that the complaints were time-barred as they were filed beyond two years from the date the deed was to be executed, and that the purchasers failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The Supreme Court examined the material on record, including the agreements and payments. The court found that the cause of action for non-execution continued until the deed was executed, so the complaints were within limitation. Regarding specific performance, the court noted that the purchasers had paid substantial amounts and were seeking execution, indicating their willingness. The court also found no basis for adverse inference as direct evidence of the agreements was available. The court upheld the National Commission's decision, dismissing the builder's appeal and affirming the relief granted to the purchasers, including execution of the deeds and payment of interest. The court emphasized the consumer protection context and the direct evidence supporting the purchasers' claims.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Limitation Period - Section 24A Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The appellant builder contended that the complaint was time-barred as it was filed beyond two years from the date when the deed of conveyance was to be executed per the agreement - The court examined the cause of action and found that the complaint was filed within the limitation period as the cause of action continued until the deed was executed - Held that the complaint was not barred by limitation (Paras 8-9). B) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Section 16 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The appellant argued that the complainants failed to aver and prove readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as required under Section 16 - The court noted that the complainants had paid substantial amounts and were seeking execution of the deed, indicating their willingness - Held that the relief granted by the National Commission was appropriate and did not require strict compliance with Section 16 in this consumer dispute context (Paras 8-9). C) Evidence Law - Adverse Inference - Section 114 Evidence Act, 1872 - The appellant submitted that adverse inference should be drawn against the complainants for not producing certain records from government departments and banks - The court found that the non-production did not materially affect the case as the direct evidence of the agreements was available - Held that adverse inference was not warranted in the circumstances (Paras 8-9). D) Property Law - Contract of Sale - Section 54 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The National Commission observed that there cannot be two agreements for sale between the same parties for the same property - The court upheld this finding, noting that the appellant's claim of multiple agreements was unsupported by direct evidence - Held that the complainants' case based on single agreements was valid (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the consumer complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether the complainants were entitled to relief of execution of deed of conveyance despite alleged non-compliance with Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the builder's appeal, upheld the National Commission's order directing execution of deeds of conveyance with interest at 10% per annum from date of complaint till payment
Law Points
- Limitation period under Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Section 24A
- Specific performance principles under Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 16
- Contract of sale under Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Section 54
- Adverse inference under Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 114
