The Delhi High Court orders NBCC to reimburse the entire sale consideration to an aggrieved homebuyer along with Rs.5 lakh compensation towards mental agony.

The Delhi High Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by a homebuyer directing the respondent National Buildings Construction Corporation to return the entire amount of money paid by the Petitioner within a period of six weeks along with interest @ 12%. The Court also directed that in view of the fact that the Petitioner had been forced to shift accommodation and fend for himself in the last seven years and has been put to extreme mental agony, the Court was inclined to direct the NBCC to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakh to the Petitioner as compensation.
 
The Petitioner had booked a flat in “NBCC Green View Apartments” in the year 2012 and despite paying the entire sale consideration the flat was never handed over to him. Moreover on an examination by structural experts by IIT Delhi it was found that due to continued deterioration in the structure it was to be evacuated. The Petitioner had approached multiple forums to enforce his rights it was contended on behalf of the Counsel for NBCC that the Petitioner was guilty of forum shopping and that section 79 of the RERA Act specifically bars any forum to entertain any suit or proceeding and also that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner was not to be entertained.
 
The High Court held thus:
 
This is a classic case of extreme hardships suffered by a home buyer who has been made to run from pillar to post after having spent his entire life savings. It is unfortunate that a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India has raised this objection that the Petitioner is guilty of forum shopping. A helpless home buyer who has sunk his life savings has no other option but to knock door after door and hoping against hope that he would be able to get his money back. Such a home buyer like the Petitioner herein fights with his back to the wall as on the one hand he has no accommodation and no life savings as it has all been sunk into a purchasing a house which would be his shelter post retirement and on the other hand he does not have money to pay rent. Such a person faces financial crunch to ensure proper education to his children and such a situation he has no other option but to knock on the doors of various forums hoping to get relief and in such a situation the contention of the State that the person is guilty of forum shopping cannot be accepted at all. 
 
Even though it is clear that while seeking legal recourse, the Petitioner did approach various forums, by filing impleadment applications before the NCDRC besides filing a complaint before the Haryana RERA for redressal of his grievances and it is well established, in various judgements of the Apex Court, that the act of forum shopping is condemned, this Court is of the opinion that in the facts of the present case, such an act of approaching various forums stems from desperation rather than a strategic pursuit of a favourable dictat. This behaviour of the Petitioner arises out of a sense of frustration, helplessness and lack of legal knowledge. 
 
NBCC is an instrumentality of the State. It is well settled that the 'State' is duty bound to act reasonably and fairly. In Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors., 2011 (6) SCC 508, the Apex Court held that the State or the public authority which holds the property of the public acts as a trustee, and therefore, has to act fairly and reasonably. The State or the instrumentality of the State is accountable to the people and it is supposed to act in public good promoting public interest. An action of a State or the instrumentality of the State stands vitiated if it lacks bonafides. The Apex Court went on further to hold that power vested by a State in a public authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest and public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the power vested in them and a decision taken in arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. The authority is expected to exercise powers to effectuate the purpose for which the power stood conferred. 

Sanjay Raghunath Piplanu and Anr. Vs. National Buildings Construction Corporation and Anr.