Godrej Projects Development Limited Vs Anil Karlekar & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court held that one-sided agreements are covered by definition of term ‘unfair trade practice’. Thus, refund of amount in excess of 10% of Basic Sale Price towards cancellation of Complainants’ Agreement justifiable.
Facts- The present appeal takes exception to the final judgment and order dated 25th October, 2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 262 of 2018, whereby the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission disposed of the Consumer Complaint filed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 thereby directing the Appellant to deduct only 10% of the Basic Sale Price towards cancellation of the Complainants’ Apartment and refund the balance amount along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Conclusion- Held that while considering the term “unfair trade practice”, this Court has found that such one-sided Agreements, as in the present case, would be covered by the definition of term “unfair trade practice”.
Held that the NCDRC, in a series of cases right from the year 2015, has held that 10% of the BSP is a reasonable amount which is liable to be forfeited as earnest money. The NCDRC has initially taken this view in the case of DLF Ltd. v. Bhagwanti Narula. The said view has been followed subsequently in various judgments of the NCDRC. We see no reason to upset the view consistently taken by the NCDRC based on the judgment of this Court in the case of Maula Bux. Though we are not inclined to interfere with the direction of the NCDRC for refund of the amount in excess of 10% of the BSP, we however find that the NCDRC was not justified in awarding interest on the amount to be refunded.
