Kolkata West International City vs Devasis Rudra on 25 March, 2019, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3182 OF 2019 by Hon’ble Supreme Court
Synopsis: Whether the buyer was entitled to seek a refund or was estopped from doing so, having claimed compensation as the primary relief in the consumer complaint. In terms of the agreement, the date for handing over possession was 31 December 2008, with a grace period of six months. Even in 2011, when the buyer filed a consumer complaint, he was ready and willing to accept possession. it would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified.