{"id":366944,"date":"2025-11-17T15:00:31","date_gmt":"2025-11-17T09:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=366944"},"modified":"2025-11-24T09:52:25","modified_gmt":"2025-11-24T04:22:25","slug":"supreme-court-directs-bengal-peerless-housing-to-handover-possession-of-flat-pending","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/supreme-court-directs-bengal-peerless-housing-to-handover-possession-of-flat-pending\/","title":{"rendered":"No ‘Force Majeure’: SC sets aside NCDRC order, directs Bengal Peerless Housing to hand over flats in 2 weeks"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> While considering a challenge to the impugned order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) in which, appellant was directed to pay the interest at 6 per cent for a period of about 10 months to the respondents for delay in giving possession of a flat; the Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., set aside NCDRC’s reasoning for awarding compensation to the respondents whereby it had held that circumstances due to which there was delay in constructing the flats, could not be construed as ‘Force Majeure<\/span>’. Supreme Court directed the appellants to hand over the possession of the flat in 2 weeks.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The respondents had booked a flat with the appellants and paid the required consideration, and the committed date of possession was 07-09-2015<\/span>. However, due to delay in handing over the possession of the flat, the respondents approached the NCDRC. The NCDRC held the appellants liable for delay and awarded simple interest @ 6% from the committed date of possession until the date of valid partial Occupancy Certificate (OC) or offer of possession, whichever was later. <\/p>\n

Aggrieved with the afore-stated order, the appellants contended before the Supreme Court that there was delay in construction of flat due to stay on construction, floods, refusal of the electricity company to lay cables to the building concerned, etc., were not force majeure.<\/span> The appellants further submitted that that though the Court may not interfere with 6% interest awarded for the period as indicated in the impugned order, the Court may set aside the reasoning given for such compensation as it will not only have a cascading effect but would also be laying a wrong precedent. The appellants also submitted that the flooring of the flat in question has been changed and offer to take possession has also been communicated but the respondents have not given any reply.<\/p>\n

Per contra<\/span>, it was argued that the respondents were prevented from owing the flat for which they had paid the amount more than a decade ago. It was further submitted that the appellants had in fact, cancelled the allotment made to the respondents for the flat which stood restored through the impugned order. Thus, it was contended that the Court may award some compensation over and above what has been awarded in the impugned order. The counsel for the respondents submitted that with the flooring changed, they are agreeable to take possession of the flat in question.<\/p>\n

Court’s Assessment:<\/h3>\n

Perusing the facts, contentions and NCDRC’s impugned order, the Court disposed the matter with the following directions:<\/p>\n