The lack of these certificates was also identified as a shortcoming in the service provision.

“In the present case, the ADA’s failure to provide the required certificates justifies the appellant’s refusal to take possession. This strengthens the appellant’s claim for additional compensation to compensate for the delay caused by the ADA’s breach of statutory obligations,” the court said.

In this case, the court ruled that both parties had failed to fulfill their obligations.

It pointed out that despite paying the provisional award of Rs 56.54 lakh in 2012, the appellant had not paid the additional amount of Rs 3,43,178 as demanded by the ADA even after being repeatedly reminded.

Instead, the appellant persistently requested a waiver of the penalty interest on the delayed payment, and finally paid the amount on June 4, 2019. This is a significant delay that cannot be overlooked, and that is without taking into account the interest component that had built up over a period of approximately five years, the court said.

“On the other hand, despite making an offer of possession in 2014, the ADA failed to comply with its statutory obligations by furnishing the requisite certificate of completion and the certificate of fire suppression clearance, both of which are essential for a valid and lawful offer of possession. The absence of these documents, which were also not furnished to the NCDRC, renders void the offer of possession made by the ADA,” the court said.

In its recent order, the court therefore, besides refunding the entire amount deposited by the appellant at an interest rate of 9% per annum from July 11, 2020 till the date of refund, ordered the ADA to pay an additional sum of Rs 15 lakh to the appellant and also return the extrajudicial stamp worth Rs 3,99,100 to the appellant within three months.

In this case, the court said, it declined to impose exemplary costs on either party, recognizing that both parties contributed to the current situation. It also noted that the ADA, as a civil body charged with serving the public and operating on a nonprofit basis, should not be unfairly penalized in a manner that could impede its functioning.