JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, INDIA VOL. 21, 2022 crores of rupees, and possession was not granted even till the filing of the complaint. Accordingly, she sought the refund of the amount paid along with interest at 24 per cent per annum. The Commission decreed her claim with interest @ nine per cent per annum for failure of the developers to deliver possession of the apartment within the time stipulated as per the Apartment Buyers Agreement. In appeal, the Developer vehemently pleaded that though the stipulated period of handing over possession had already expired, nevertheless, “the purchaser will only be entitled to delay compensation under Clause 13” of the Agreement.13 The three-Judge bench of the Supreme Court has negated this plea by observing that “the Commission is correct in its approach in holding that the clauses of the agreement are one-sided and that the Consumer is not bound to accept the possession of the apartment and can seek refund of the amount deposited by her with interest.”14 For agreeing with the “approach” of the National Commission that prompted it to hold that in the instant case, “the agreement is one-sided, heavily loaded against the allottee and entirely in favour of the Developers,” the Supreme Court bench has examined the catena of cases.15 The following principles underlying those judicial precedents may be usefully abstracted as under: (a) If the terms of agreement are “wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable”, the same “could not be relied upon”.16 (b) “A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder.”17 (c) A buyer “cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him, and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him, along with compensation”.18 13 14 15 16 17 18 6 See, Experion Developers, para 3.2. Id., para 10. Cited in id., para 5. Id., para 8.2, citing Pioneer Urban Land Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/1071/2019: (2019) 8 SCC 416, para 6.3. Hereinafter simply Pioneer. Id., para 8.2, citing Pioneer (para 6.8). See also the observations to the same effect in, id., para 9.3, citing NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Shri Ram Trivedi, MANU/SC/0179/2021: (2021) 5 SCC 273. The same principle was followed in a subsequent decision in DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association and Ors. MANU/SC/1003/2020: (2021) 5 SCC 537. Id., para 8.2, citing Pioneer (para 6.1).