IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3523 OF 2020 (Arising out of Diary No.18675 of 2020)

NARENDER GUPTA Appellant

Mukesh Nasa Date: 2020.10.29 16:59:08 IST Reason:

VERSUS

DLF LIMITED & ORS. Respondents

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

This appeal challenges final judgment and order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, ("the National Commission" for short) in Consumer Complaint No.1036 of 2018.

Paragraph 39 of said judgment records the conclusion arrived at by the National Commission as under:

"39. For all the afore-noted reasons this Complaint is allowed in part directing DLF Ltd. to offer peaceful possession of the subject flat, complete in all respects, with the Occupation Certificate. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case, it is clarified that the Developer shall not charge any further charges like maintenance and holding charges from the date of occupation certificate till the actual date of possession. It is also directed that DLF Ltd. refund the car parking charges collected from the Complainant with interest @ 7% from the date of deposit till the date of realization and not to insist upon any undertaking before the offer of possession. The rest of the claims made by the Complainants stand dismissed. Time for compliance within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of realization. We also award costs of Rs.50,000/-." Digitally signed by Dr. Signature Not Verified

The issue whether the appellant was entitled to "Timely Payment Rebate" was considered by the National Commission in depth. According to the Tabular Chart extracted in paragraph 17, there were defaults on the part of the appellant in making timely payment on as many as 19 occasions.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the National Commission concluded that the appellant was not entitled to any "Timely Payment Rebate".

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In our considered view, the conclusions arrived at by the National Commission do not call for any interference.

This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT]

......................J. [VINEET SARAN]

......................J. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT]

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 27, 2020.

ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVII-A (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

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

CIVIL APPEAL Diary No.18675/2020

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-01-2020 in CCN No.1036/2018 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)

NARENDER GUPTA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

DLF LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION; and, IA No.91594/2020 – FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL)

WITH

C.A. No.3223/2020 (XVII-A)

(FOR ADMISSION; IA No.94284/2020 – FOR STAY; and, I.A. No.108536 of 2020 – FOR INTERVENTION)

Date : 27-10-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

Counsel for the Parties:

Mr. Aditya Parolia, Adv. Mr. Piyush Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Nithin Chandran, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Seema Sundd, Adv. Mr. Pravin Bhadur, Adv. Mr. Nakul Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Srivatava, Adv. Mr. Kamal Taneja, Adv. Mr. Aditya Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Snehil Srivatava, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Anmol Jassal, Adv. M/s. Karanjawala & Co., AOR

Mr. Ranvir Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Verma, Adv. Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL DIARY No.18675/2020

Delay condoned.

The Civil Appeal is dismissed, in terms of the Signed Order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

CIVIL APPEAL No.3223/2020

Issue notice, returnable on 09.12.2020.

Mr. Aditya Parolia, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 on caveat accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1. He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file an affidavit in reply.

Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.

Mr. Aditya Parolia, learned Advocate submits that the possession of the apartment is not being handed over to the respondent.

In response, Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submits that if all the dues are paid by the respondent, the appellant shall certainly hand over the possession of the concerned apartment.

We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay all the dues to the appellant within three weeks from today. The possession of the apartment shall be handed over to the respondent within two weeks thereafter.

Any payment made by the respondent shall be subject to the result of the appeal.

Pending further consideration, the proceedings in execution initiated at the instance of the respondent shall remain stayed.

List the matter for final disposal on 09.12.2020.

I.A. No.108536 of 2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3223 OF 2020

This application has been preferred by 14 applicants seeking intervention in the present matter. It is submitted that they have similar interest in the matter.

The applicants were never parties to the dispute, which was dealt with by the National Commission. We, therefore, do not deem it appropriate to entertain this application.

The application is, accordingly, rejected.

(MUKESH NASA) (BEENA JOLLY) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER (SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)