Delhi Consumer Commission Declares Its Own Refund Order 'Non-Est' After NCLT-Approved Plan-A Is Implemented
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi, comprising President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar and Members Ashwani Kumar Mehta and Harpreet Kaur Charya, held that its earlier refund order in favour of the homebuyers had become non-est and incapable of execution in view of the subsequent approval and implementation of the NCLT-approved Plan-A. The Commission held that its earlier order could not be executed as it was contrary to the binding directions issued by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Brief Facts
The complainants, a husband and wife, had booked a residential flat in the "Cosmos Express 99" project being developed by Cosmos Infra Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. under a Flat Buyer Agreement executed in 2016. As possession of the flat was not delivered within the stipulated period, they approached the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought refund of the amount paid along with interest and compensation.
The Consumer Commission allowed the complaint on 22 November 2024 and directed the developer to refund ₹74,138,989 along with interest and compensation. However, after the order was passed, the developer filed a review application, contending that during the pendency of the consumer complaint, the NCLT had approved Plan-A for completion of the project, which was binding on all homebuyers, including the complainants.
The complainants thereafter filed an execution application seeking enforcement of the refund order dated 22 November 2024.
The developer argued that these subsequent developments had not been brought to the Commission's notice before the final order was passed.
The complainants opposed the review, arguing that the Consumer Commission had no power to recall its final order and that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was an additional statutory remedy.
The Commission heard the review and execution applications together to determine whether its earlier refund order could still be enforced in light of the subsequent NCLT proceedings and implementation of the NCLT-approved Plan-A.
Observation and Decision
The Commission observed that its earlier refund order had been passed without being informed that the NCLT had already approved Plan-A for completion of the project. It noted that neither party had informed it about the pendency of the NCLT proceedings while the consumer complaint was reserved for judgment, and observed that had these developments been disclosed, it would not have passed the refund order.
The Commission further observed that since the NCLT-approved Plan-A was binding on all homebuyers and had already been implemented, its earlier refund order had become non-est and stood extinguished. It held that execution of the refund order would directly conflict with the binding directions of the NCLT and had become impossible in law.
Relying on the Doctrine of Impossibility, the Commission held that the refund order had become incapable of execution in view of the binding directions of the NCLT.
Accordingly, the Commission allowed the review application, declared its earlier order dated 22 November 2024 to be non-est and incapable of execution, and dismissed the execution application.
Case Title: Rohit Lal & Anr. v. Cosmos Infra Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Review Application No. DC/80/RA/15/2024 and Execution Application No. DC/80/EA/4/2025 in Consumer Complaint No. DC/80/CC/139/2021