Rights of Second-Hand Buyer of a Flat are Same as of Original Buyer: Supreme Court
It was observed by the apex court that the rights which we have for the second hand or we can say a subsequent buyer is same as an original buyer of the flat. There is no bar to grant relief of interest on refund to a subsequent purchaser of a flat further all these things were held by the court.
All these things have been observed by the Bench of Hon'ble Justice UU Lalit, Hon'ble Justice Hemant Gupta, and Hon'ble Justice S Ravindra Bhat that it couldn't be said that a subsequent purchaser can't step into the shoes of an original allottee of a housing project where the builder hasn't kept its promise to deliver flats on time for the performance of the builder's obligation.
The builder had challenged the NCDRC ruling directing it to restore the money deposited in respect of the deposit, plus interest at 10% per annum from the date of deposit, as well as the cost of Rs 25000. The builder claimed that the complaint could not claim interest because he was not the original allottee but a later purchaser.
The builder relied on the cases of HUDA vs Raje Ram and Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan versus DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd in this regard. In this regards the courts ruled that when an allottee transfers his right to another person, he loses his ability to claim equity, including interest because when the rights are transferred to another then he doesn’t have any right to claim for the equity or the claim of interest.
The decision of the case and the case itself before the Supreme court-
The question was asked before the Supreme Court that whether a subsequent purchaser is entitled to the same treatment as the original allottee, and whether he can be refused the same relief that was accorded to the original allottee. This was the main question that was asked.
According to the Bench, most people finance an apartment, and the loan payments usually begin even before the flat is transferred to the allottee. When a new purchaser assumes the liabilities of an original allottee, he is not automatically categorized as a consumer.
The Consumer Protection Act was created as a statute to handle a consumer's grievances and give a place for rapid redress, according to the Bench. Like whatever the complaints of the consumers having under this act all the complaints would be redressed. As a result, the lack of privity of contract did not prevent a customer from filing a complaint against a service provider. Because if they have a problem then they can find a way so that the problem would get redressed anyhow and if there is a lack of privity of contract then still it cannot prevent from filing a complaint.
So, after looking at the above-mentioned observations then the bench had ruled in the light of the above-mentioned observations that there was no per se obstacle to granting interest relief to the plaintiff.