Order dismissing appeal cannot be read as precedent & applied to cases in hand

Experion Developers Private Limited Vs Himanshu Dewan And Sonali Dewan And Others (Supreme Court of India)

Conclusion:  In present facts of the case, the matter was remanded and it was observed that the order of this Court dismissing the appeal cannot be read as a precedent and applied to the cases in hand. In fact, precedents cannot decide questions of fact.

Facts: In present facts of the case, the appeal was filed u/s 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which was directed against the order and judgment dated 16.01.2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the Consumer Case No. 34/2022, whereby the appellant has been directed to refund to the Respondent, the amount collected towards excess sale area, and to execute supplementary correction deeds within six weeks from the date of the order. The appellant in the instant case had developed and constructed the apartments in a housing project, namely “Windchants”, situated in Gurgaon, Haryana. The respondents were the allottees or the subsequent purchasers/buyers of their apartments.

According to the appellant, there was an increase in the sale area, earlier provisionally allotted to the respondents, and therefore vide communication/letter dated 27.04.2017, the respective allottees were informed about the increase and revision in the sale area of their apartments. Accordingly, the differential demand letters on account of such increase were issued by the appellant to the allottees of the apartments, including the respondents. The respondents/their respective previous allottees made payments towards the differential demand without any demur or protest between the period December 2017 to August 2018, and the appellant executed the conveyance deeds in their favour between the period April 2018 to September 2019.

Subsequently, the respondents on 25.02.2022 filed a complaint being Consumer Case No. 34/2022 before the National Commission seeking a refund of the amounts paid by them towards the increased sale area alleging, inter alia, that there was neither increase in the carpet area nor in the built-up area, and that the demand towards increase in the sale area made by the appellant was illegal. The respondents relied upon the decision dated 26.08.2020 rendered by the National Commission in the case of Pawan Gupta v. Experion Developers Private Limited.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.