{"id":181398,"date":"2007-05-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007"},"modified":"2017-01-05T07:56:46","modified_gmt":"2017-01-05T02:26:46","slug":"bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: R V Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: P. K. Balasubramanyan, R. V. Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5462 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nBangalore Development Authority\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSyndicate Bank\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nP. K. Balasubramanyan & R. V. Raveendran\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal by Special Leave is filed against the order dated
\n11.04.2002, passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal
\nCommission (‘Commission’ for short) in O.P.No. 21 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n
The Facts<\/p>\n
2.\tThe Banglore Development Authority (Appellant herein, ‘BDA’ for
\nshort) introduced a “Self Financing Housing Scheme” for construction of
\nflats\/houses in Banglore in the year 1982.   The said Scheme contemplated
\nconstruction of three types of flats\/houses categorized as Higher Income
\nGroup, Middle Income Group, and Low Income Group (‘HIG’, ‘MIG’, and
\n‘LIG’ for short).  Under the said scheme an applicant for allotment was
\nrequired to make an initial deposit of 15% of the cost of the unit and pay the
\nbalance in eight quarterly instalments of 10% and the last instalment of 5%.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tSyndicate Bank (‘Respondent’ herein) made an application dated
\n17.7.1982 for allotment of 250 flats\/houses under the said scheme, that is, 15
\n‘HIG’ Houses, 110 ‘MIG’ units and 125 ‘LIG’ units. BDA registered the
\nrequest for allotment of 15 HIG Houses, vide confirmation letter dated
\n20.8.1984. This appeal relates to delay in delivery of 11 HIG houses at
\nR.M.V. Extension, Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBDA had initially fixed the tentative price of a HIG house as
\nRs.2,85,000\/-. The price was revised to Rs.4.75 lakhs per unit (Rs.5.5 lakhs
\nin respect of corner units). By letter dated 22.08.1985, BDA informed the
\nrespondent about the revision of price of HIG Houses from Rs.2.85 lakhs to
\n4.75 lakhs per unit.  BDA also indicated the total amount due in respect of
\n15 HIG Houses and required the Respondent to pay the said amount in
\ninstallments as shown in the Annexure thereto.  BDA also informed the
\nRespondent that the units would be ready for occupation in December, 1986.
\nAs respondent did not pay the instalments, BDA sent a letter dated
\n20.10.1986 demanding payment. By letter dated 27.5.1987, BDA informed
\nRespondent that 15 Houses (including three corner houses) had been allotted
\nto Respondent on 16.1.1987 and furnished the numbers of the houses
\nallotted.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tA sum of Rs.98,85,210\/- paid by the Respondent towards the cost of
\nLIG units became refundable to respondent, on account of surrender of
\nallotment of the 125 LIG units. The cost of 15 HIG houses was Rs.73.5
\nlakhs (that is, three corner units at the rate of Rs.5.5 lakhs each and 12 other
\nunits  at the rate of Rs.4.75 lakhs each).  The respondent had paid a sum of
\nRs.19,33,925\/- in advance towards the cost of the 15 H.I.G. houses and the
\nbalance due was Rs.54,16,075\/-.  By letter dated 15.5.1989, BDA adjusted
\nand appropriated the said sum of Rs.54,16,075\/- (due in respect of 15 HIG
\nHouses) and a sum of Rs.21,66,250\/- (due in respect of MIG Units), from
\nout of Rs.98,85,210\/- paid towards LIG units, and refunded the balance of
\nRs.23,02,885\/- to the Respondent.  Thus it would be seen that the cost of
\nH.I.G. units was received by BDA only on 15.05.1989.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tBDA delivered 4 HIG houses in December, 1989 and May, 1990. The
\ncompletion of construction and delivery of remaining 11 H.I.G. houses (in
\nRMV Extension, Bangalore) was delayed. By letters dated 29.11.1989,
\n17.01.1990, 9.7.1993 and 11.1.1994, the Respondent pointed out the delay in
\ndelivery of the HIG houses and requested for early delivery of possession of
\nthe houses. Respondent also demanded interest on the price paid, at the bank
\nrate from 01.01.1986 till date the delivery of the houses apart from
\nreimbursement of the losses incurred on account of the non-delivery. When
\nthe officers of the respondent met the officers of BDA personally to enquire
\nabout the 11 Houses, they were informed that the delay was on account of
\nthe contractor (M\/s. Khoday Engineering) raising a dispute and stopping the
\nwork in respect of part of the project, and assured that possession will be
\ndelivered immediately after completion. The Respondent issued a final
\nnotice dated 11.07.1994 through counsel demanding performance within one
\nmonth. When BDA failed, the respondent filed a complaint before the
\nCommission under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act’ for
\nshort).\n<\/p>\n
Claim, defence and the decision <\/p>\n
7. \tThe Respondent sought the following reliefs against BDA, in its
\ncomplaint :\n<\/p>\n
a)\tCompletion and due delivery of the remaining 11 HIG houses;\n<\/p>\n
b)\tPayment of Rs.1,98,40,930\/73 by way of interest on the sum of
\nRs.53 lakhs being the price of the said 11  houses from
\n01.01.1986 to 31.12.1994 (the interest claimed at the bank rate
\nvarying from 16.5% to 24.25% P.A. compounded quarterly);\n<\/p>\n
c)\tPayment of Rs. 16.5 lakhs as reimbursement of the rent paid by
\nthe Respondent for 11 houses at the rate of Rs.3,000\/- per house
\nper month from 01.01.1987  to 31.12.1994 (Note : Though for
\n96 months the amount works out Rs.31,68,000\/-, claim was
\nrestricted to Rs.16.5 lakhs which is the rent for 11 houses for 50
\nmonths);\n<\/p>\n
d)\tPayment of Rs.25,00,000\/- as compensation for mental agony
\nand harassment;\n<\/p>\n
e)\tPayment of future interest at 19.5% P.A. on Rs. 53,00,000\/-
\nplus Rs.33,000\/- per month by way of reimbursement of the
\nrent, from 01.01.1995 till delivery of possession<\/p>\n
8.\tBDA resisted the claim both on the question of maintainability, as
\nalso merits. In brief, the contentions were :\n<\/p>\n
a)\tIt was not a service provider nor a seller of goods and the
\nrespondent was not a ‘consumer’ and therefore the complaint
\nunder the Act was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
b)\tThe contract did not stipulate any period for completion and
\ndelivery. Being a building contract, time was not the essence of
\nthe contract. The project related to construction of 558 HIG
\nHouses. 490 houses were completed during 1989. The
\ncontractor – M\/s. Khoday Engineering, raised a dispute and
\ndelayed the work relating to the remaining 68 houses (including
\n11 houses to be delivered to the respondent). After making all
\npossible efforts to persuade the contractor to take up and
\ncomplete the work, it rescinded the contract with the contractor
\nby Resolution dated 15.2.1995 and took steps to get the work
\ncompleted through an alternative agency. The delay was thus
\nfor reasons wholly beyond its control and unintentional, and
\nthere was no breach.\n<\/p>\n
c) \tIt would complete and deliver the 11 houses within a short time
\nat the agreed price, though price of the houses had risen by 10
\ntimes.\n<\/p>\n
d) \tAs it was executing the self financing housing scheme on ‘no
\nprofit no loss’ basis, it should not be burdened with any
\nfinancial liability for any delay.\n<\/p>\n
e) \tEven if it was treated as a service provider and the complaint
\nwas held to be maintainable, as there was no negligence or
\ndeficiency in service on its part, it was not liable to pay any
\ninterest or compensation.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tDuring the pendency of the complaint before the commission, BDA
\ndelivered one HIG house on 21.1.1997 and remaining 10 HIG houses on
\n12.3.1997. The Respondent thus secured the main relief sought in the
\ncomplaint. What remained was the claim for interest and compensation.
\nParties led evidence by way of affidavits.  Neither party sought leave to
\ncross-examine the witness (deponent) of the other party. The Commission by
\norder dated 11.04.2002 allowed the complaint. It held :\n<\/p>\n
a)\tBDA had promised to deliver the houses to the Respondent by
\nDecember, 1986.\n<\/p>\n
b)\tIn spite of respondent having made full payment and making
\nrepeated demands, 11 houses were not delivered till the
\ncomplaint was filed in 1995. Thus there was deficiency of
\nservice  on the part of BDA.\n<\/p>\n
c)\tBDA had not placed any material on record to show why the
\nhouses could not be completed and delivered between 1985 to
\n1991. The complainant was in no way concerned with the
\ndispute between BDA and its contractor and the consequential
\ndelay. Even though the 11 houses were delivered in 1997 after
\nthe complaint, BDA was guilty of deficiency in rendering
\nservice.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the said findings, following its decision in HUDA Vs. Darsh
\nKumar [Revision Petition No. 1197\/1998 dated 31.8.2001], it directed the
\nappellant to pay interest at 18% per annum on Rs.53,00,000\/- (the
\napproximate price of 11 HIG Houses) commencing from the expiry of two
\nyears after the deposit of last instalment of Rs.53 lakhs up to date of handing
\nover the possession.  The said order is challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The principles<\/p>\n
10.\tWhere a Development Authority forms layouts and allots plots\/flats
\n(or houses) by inviting applications, the following general principles
\nregulate the granting of relief to a consumer (applicant for allotment) who
\ncomplains of delay in delivery or non-delivery and seeks redressal under the
\nConsumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act’ for short) –  [vide : Lucknow
\nDevelopment Authority vs. M. K. Gupta<\/a> – 1994 (1) SCC 243, Ghaziabad
\nDevelopment Authority vs. Balbir Singh<\/a> – 2004 (5) SCC 65, and Haryana
\nDevelopment Authority vs. Darsh Kumar<\/a> – 2005 (9) SCC 449, as also
\nGhaziabad Development Authority vs. Union of India<\/a> – 2000 (6) SCC 113]:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tWhere the development authority having received the full price, does
\nnot deliver possession of the allotted plot\/flat\/house within the time
\nstipulated or within a reasonable time, or where the allotment is cancelled or
\npossession is refused without any justifiable cause, the allottee is entitled for
\nrefund of the amount paid, with reasonable interest thereon from the date of
\npayment to date of refund. In addition, the allottee may also be entitled to
\ncompensation, as may be decided with reference to the facts of each case.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tWhere no time is stipulated for performance of the contract (that is for
\ndelivery), or where time is not the essence of the contract and the buyer does
\nnot issue a notice making time the essence by fixing a reasonable time for
\nperformance, if the buyer, instead of rescinding the contract on the ground of
\nnon-performance, accepts the belated performance in terms of the contract,
\nthere is no question of any breach or payment of damages under the general
\nlaw governing contracts. However, if some statute steps in and creates any
\nstatutory obligations on the part of the development authority in the
\ncontractual field, the matter will be governed by the provisions of that
\nstatute.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tWhere an alternative site is offered or delivered (at the agreed price)
\nin view of its inability to deliver the earlier allotted plot\/flat\/house, or where
\nthe delay in delivering possession of the allotted plot\/flat\/house is for
\njustifiable reasons, ordinarily the allottee will not be entitled to any interest
\nor compensation. This is because the buyer has the benefit of appreciation in
\nvalue.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tThough the relationship between Development Authority and an
\napplicant for allotment is that of a seller and buyer, and therefore governed
\nby law of contracts, (which does not recognise mental agony and suffering
\nas a head of damages for breach), compensation can be awarded to the
\nconsumer under the head of mental agony and suffering, by applying the
\nprinciple of Administrative Law, where the seller being a statutory authority
\nacts negligently, arbitrarily or capriciously.\n<\/p>\n
(e)\tWhere an alternative plot\/flat\/house is allotted and delivered, not at
\nthe original agreed price, but by charging current market rate which is much
\nhigher, the allottee will be entitled to interest at a reasonable rate on the
\namount paid towards the earlier allotment, from the date of deposit to date of
\ndelivery of the alternative plot\/flat\/house. In addition, he may be entitled to
\ncompensation also, determined with reference to the facts of the case, if
\nthere are no justifiable reasons for non-delivery of the first allotted
\nplot\/flat\/house.\n<\/p>\n
(f)\tWhere the plot\/flat\/house has been allotted at a tentative or
\nprovisional price, subject to final determination of price on completion of
\nthe project (that is acquisition proceedings and development activities), the
\nDevelopment Authority will be entitled to revise or increase the price.  But
\nwhere the allotment is at a fixed price, and a higher price or extra payments
\nare illegally or unjustifiably demanded and collected, the allottee will be
\nentitled to refund of such excess with such interest, as may be determined
\nwith reference to the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
(g)\tWhere full payment is made and possession is delivered, but title deed
\nis not executed without any justifiable cause, the allottee may be awarded
\ncompensation, for harassment and mental agony, in addition to appropriate
\ndirection for execution and delivery of title deed.\n<\/p>\n
(h)\tWhere the allotment relates to a flat\/house and construction is
\nincomplete or not in accordance with the agreed specifications, when it is
\ndelivered, the allottee will be entitled to compensation equivalent to the cost
\nof completing the building or rectifying the defects.\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe quantum of compensation to be awarded, if it is to be awarded,
\nwill depend on the facts of each case, nature of harassment, the period of
\nharassment and the nature of arbitrary or capricious or negligent action of
\nthe authority which led to such harassment.\n<\/p>\n
(j)\tWhile deciding whether the allottee is entitled to any relief and in
\nmoulding the relief, the following among other relevant factors should be
\nconsidered : (i) whether the layout is developed on ‘no profit no loss’ basis,
\nor with commercial or profit motive; (ii) whether there is any assurance or
\ncommitment in regard to date of delivery of possession; (iii) whether there
\nwere any justifiable reasons for the delay or failure to deliver possession;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) whether the complainant has alleged and proved that there has been any
\nnegligence, shortcoming or inadequacy on the part of the developing
\nauthority or its officials in the performance of the functions or obligations in
\nregard to delivery; and (v) whether the allottee has been subjected to
\navoidable harassment and mental agony.\n<\/p>\n
Whether Respondent is entitled to interest?\n<\/p>\n
11.\tAt the outset, we may notice that there is some vagueness in the order
\nof the Commission, in regard to the period for which interest is awarded.
\nThe Commission has awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum
\ncommencing from the expiry of two years after the deposit of ‘last
\ninstalment’ of Rs.53 lakhs. The sum of Rs.53 lakhs was not paid in
\ninstalments as assumed by the Commission. BDA recovered Rs.54,16,075\/-
\ndue towards the cost of 15 HIG Houses by adjustment and appropriation
\nfrom the amount which had became refundable to the Respondent on
\naccount of surrender of allotment in regard to LIG units. Such adjustment
\nwas made on 15.5.1989 and for all purposes, that is the date of payment of
\nprice of the HIG Houses. As the houses were delivered in January\/March,
\n1997, the direction issued by the Commission would mean that BDA had to
\npay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 15.5.1991 to January\/March,
\n1997 which works out to about Rs.55 lakhs. Because of the vagueness in the
\ndirection regarding date of commencement of interest, the Respondent
\ncontended that interest should be calculated from the expiry of two years
\nfrom the date of payment of last instalment, which was in December, 1985
\n(which was in respect of LIG units). Respondent contends that if interest is
\nso calculated the amount due as interest would be Rs.87.89 lakhs. Be that as
\nit may.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe Commission has neither referred to the relevant facts nor drawn
\nproper inferences. There is no basis for the finding that BDA had agreed to
\ndeliver the houses by December, 1986 or the finding that no reason was
\nshown for the delay in delivery. The allotment of 15 HIG Houses identified
\nby House numbers was only by resolution dated 16.1.1987 and
\ncommunicated to Respondent on 27.5.1987. The payment was only on
\n15.5.1989. Delivery could not, therefore, obviously be by the end of
\nDecember, 1986. If reasonable period for construction is to be reckoned as
\ntwo years (as assumed by the Commission), then the question of delay
\nwould  arise only after 15.5.1991. The Commission also assumed that mere
\ndelay automatically meant deficiency in service and in all such cases, the
\nallottee will be entitled to interest at 18% per annum from the date of
\npayment till date of delivery by relying on its decision in HUDA vs. Darsh
\nKumar. The decision of the Commission in HUDA vs. Darsh Kumar was
\nheld to be unsustainable by this Court, on appeal in HUDA vs. Darsh Kumar
\n[2005 (9) SCC 449]. This Court held that there cannot be uniform award of
\ninterest at 18% per annum in all cases and that in cases of complaints of
\ndeficiency in service by a development authority relating to allotment of
\nplots\/flats, the principles laid down in Balbir Singh (Supra) should be
\napplied. Therefore, the decision of the Commission under appeal, based on
\nits earlier decision in Darsh Kumar, cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tAs already noticed, where the grievance is one of delay in delivery of
\npossession, and the Development Authority delivers the house during the
\npendency of the complaint at the agreed price, and such delivery is accepted
\nby the allottee-complainant, the question of awarding any interest on the
\nprice paid by him from the date of deposit to date of delivery of possession,
\ndoes not arise. The allottee who had the benefit of appreciation of price of
\nthe house, is not entitled to interest on the price paid. In this case, the 11
\nhouses were delivered in 1997 at the agreed prices (Rs. 5.5 lacs per corner
\nHIG House and Rs.4.75 lacs per other HIG Houses).  In view of it, the order
\nof the Commission awarding interest at 18% per annum on the price of the
\nhouses is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Whether respondent is entitled to any compensation?\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThis leads us to the next question as to whether the Respondent is
\nentitled to any compensation, to make good the loss caused to him on
\naccount of the delay in delivery. The loss is the rental income which the
\nhouses would have fetched if they had been delivered earlier from the agreed
\ndue date to date of actual delivery of possession. Alternatively, it is the rent
\npaid by the Respondent for the houses taken on lease due to non-availability
\nof the allotted houses. The Respondent contends that it is entitled to
\nreimbursement of the rents paid by it in respect of 11 houses, on account of
\nthe delay on the part of BDA in delivering the houses. It was submitted that
\neven if a reasonable time of two years is provided for construction from the
\ndeemed date of payment (15.5.1989), BDA would be liable to compensate
\nthe Respondent for the rent paid by it for 11 houses from 15.5.1991 till
\nJanuary\/March, 1997. Respondent alleged that it had to pay a rent of
\nRs.3000\/- per house or Rs.33000\/- for 11 Houses, per month, due to the non-
\ndelivery of 11 HIG Houses. The Respondent submitted that the
\ncompensation payable would therefore be around Rs.23 lakhs; and that as it
\nhad restricted its claim to Rs.16,50,000\/- in the complaint under this head,
\nthe said amount may be awarded as compensation.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe Respondent did not produce any document to show that it paid
\nRs.3,000\/- per month per house for similar houses between 1991 and 1997.
\nNor did it produce any evidence to show that Rs.3000\/- was the prevailing
\nrent for similar houses. It is not the case of the Respondent that
\ndocumentary evidence for payment of rent was not available. Where
\ndocumentary evidence was available, but not produced, obviously a mere
\nstatement in the affidavit cannot be the basis for award of damages.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThe more serious issue is whether the facts and circumstances warrant
\na finding of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of BDA
\nnecessitating award of compensation. The brochure relating to the BDA
\nscheme did not mention any specific date for delivery of possession of the
\nhouses. No agreement was entered into between the parties stipulating any
\ntime for performance or delivery of houses. The only document on which
\nreliance     is     placed      by      the      respondent        is     a     letter
\ndated 22.8.1985 wherein BDA makes a reference to the expected date of
\ncompletion of construction while intimating the revised cost of the HIG
\nhouses on account of escalation etc. The said letter stated that the total cost
\nof 15 HIG houses would be Rs.7125000\/- and after adjustment of
\nRs.1068750\/-, the balance of Rs.6036250\/- was payable in seven bi-monthly
\ninstalments from November, 1985 to December, 1986, (the first six
\ninstalments being Rs.862327\/- and the last instalment being Rs.862288\/-). It
\nalso incidentally stated that the houses would be ready for occupation in
\nDecember, 1986. The instalments were not paid and respondent itself was
\nthe defaulter. Nevertheless, BDA allotted 15 houses as per intimation dated
\n27.5.1987. In a self financing scheme, the instalments paid by the allottees
\nare used for construction. If an allottee does not pay the instalments, he
\ncannot obviously expect completion of construction. In this case, the
\npayment was received by BDA (without charging any interest) by way of
\nadjustment on 15.5.1989. Even if the reasonable period for construction is
\ntaken as two years, BDA had to explain the ‘delay’ only from 15.5.1991 and
\nnot from 1985 as assumed by the Commission. BDA delivered four houses
\nin time, that is in 1989 and 1990. It did not deliver the remaining 11 houses,
\nas its contractor delayed execution of the work. It may be mentioned that the
\nproject contemplated construction of 558 HIG houses and the work got stuck
\nonly in regard to 68 houses (including the 11 houses to be delivered to the
\nRespondent). When the respondent wrote letters in 1989, 1990, 1993 and
\n1994 and also got in touch with BDA officers, seeking possession, BDA
\nexplained that the delay was on account of its contractor (M\/s Khoday
\nEngineering) stopping work and raising a dispute. BDA took necessary
\nsteps, and even sought government intervention, to persuade the contractor
\nto proceed with the work. Having failed in its effort, it ultimately cancelled
\nthe contract with the contractor and got the work completed through an
\nalternative agency and immediately after completion, delivered the houses in
\nJanuary\/March, 1997.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tWe find that both parties – BDA as also the Respondent proceeded on
\nthe basis that time was not the essence of the contract. In a contract
\ninvolving construction, time is not the essence of the contract unless
\nspecified. Even when the respondent wrote the letters dated 29.11.1989,
\n17.1.1990, 9.7.1993 and 11.1.1994, it did not make time for performance the
\nessence of contract, nor fix any reasonable time for performance. The
\nRespondent did not also choose to terminate the contract, obviously in view
\nof the manifold increase in the value of the Houses. For the first time, by
\nnotice dated 11.7.1994, it purported to make the time the essence, but
\ndemanded delivery within an unreasonable period of one month and filed the
\ncomplaint on 4.2.1995. Thus, it cannot be said that the Respondent made
\ntime the essence of contract, in a manner recognized in law. We also find
\nthat the development authority was constructing these houses under a self-
\nfinancing scheme on ‘No-Profit No-Loss basis’ by using the
\ninstalments\/amounts paid by the allottees. The houses were delivered in
\n1997 at a price agreed in 1986.  By 1997, the value had gone up many times
\n(more than 10 times according to BDA). The Respondent had the benefit of
\nsuch rise in value. The respondent also failed to prove any negligence on the
\npart of BDA. In this factual background, we find it difficult to hold that there
\nwas ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of BDA entitling the respondent for
\nany compensation by way of interest or otherwise. Consequently, the
\nrespondent is not entitled to any compensation.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tWe may also note that the respondent had also written letters dated
\n27.12.2005 and 25.1.2006 during the pendency of these appeals stating that
\nif the sale deeds were executed in respect of these 11 houses, it will
\nwithdraw its claim against BDA. The sale deeds were not executed and the
\nmatter is kept pending in view of the pendency of the dispute.\n<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
19.\tBefore concluding, it is necessary to refer to one more contention
\nurged by BDA. It contended that when a person enters into a contract for
\npurchasing a house (land with building), from a Development Authority, the
\nallottee does not ‘hire or avail of a service’ and is not a ‘consumer’ under the
\nAct. It is contended that where the contract is for sale of a house (land with
\nbuilding) as contrasted from a contract for construction of a house by a
\ncontractor with the site-owner, the seller is not a service provider, and the
\npurchaser is not a consumer; and sale of land with a building constructed by
\na development authority, involves neither sale of goods, nor hiring\/availing
\nof any services. BDA had specifically raised this contention before the
\nCommission as a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the
\ncomplaint. It appears that this contention was not pressed before the
\nCommission nor raised as a specific ground in the special leave petition, in
\nview of the decision of this Court in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.
\nK. Gupta (Supra). In<\/a> that case, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that
\nwhere a development authority undertakes to construct buildings or allot
\nhouses or building sites either as amenity or as benefit, it amounts to
\nrendering of a service and will be covered by the expression ‘service made
\navailable to potential users’  referred to in section 2(o) of the Act. But this
\nCourt did not examine or deal with the question whether a contract for sale
\nof a house premises, (that is site with a constructed house), as contrasted
\nfrom a contract of construction  amounted to ‘providing a service of any
\ndescription to a potential user including housing construction’. Be that as it
\nmay. Though there appears to be some logic in the contention of BDA, we
\ndo not propose to decide the issue, as we are allowing this appeal on other
\ngrounds, and as this contention was not specifically pressed before the
\nCommission. We leave this question open for decision in an appropriate
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tIn view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the order
\ndated 11.4.2002 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
\nAs the main prayer for completion and delivery of the houses was complied
\nwith during the pendency of the complaint, and as we have held that
\nrespondent is not entitled to interest or compensation, the complaint is
\ndisposed of with a direction to BDA to complete the process of execution
\nand registration of sale deed\/s in respect of the houses without claiming any
\nextra cost,  within  three  months  from  today.  The  cost  of  stamp duty and <\/p>\n
registration in respect of such sale deeds will be borne by the respondent.
\nParties to bear their respective costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007 Author: R V Raveendran Bench: P. K. Balasubramanyan, R. V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5462 of 2002 PETITIONER: Bangalore Development Authority RESPONDENT: Syndicate Bank DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/05\/2007 BENCH: P. K. Balasubramanyan & R. V. Raveendran JUDGMENT: J U D […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-181398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-05T02:26:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-05T02:26:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4350,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007\",\"name\":\"Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-05T02:26:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-05T02:26:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-05T02:26:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007"},"wordCount":4350,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007","name":"Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-05T02:26:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bangalore-development-authority-vs-syndicate-bank-on-17-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181398","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=181398"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181398\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}