PER SUBHASH CHANDRA This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the Developer”) under Section 19 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) against the impugned order dated 20.09.2019 in Complaint No.349 of 2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”). 2. The State Commission allowed the Complaint with the following directions: “19. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The opposite party is directed as under: - - To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainants, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges by them, directly to the Registering Authorities, if not yet executed.
- To pay compensation to the complainants,, by way of interest @ 9% p.a., on the amount of ₹35,46,195/-, from 22.05.2014 (committed date) till 28.06.2017 i.e. two months after issuance of completion certificate dated 28.04.2017, (Annexure OP/3), within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter, the said amount of ₹35,46,195/-, shall further carry 3% penal interest i.e. total 12% p.a. (9% p.a. plus (+) 3% p.a.) from the date of passing of this order till realization.
- To pay compensation, in the sum of ₹1,50,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment caused to the complainants and cost of litigation, to the tune of ₹35,000/- to the complainants, failing which, thereafter, the said amount of ₹1,50,000/- and ₹35,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order till realization.
3. Against this order, the Developer has filed the present Appeal. 4. The Developer has filed the Appeal seeking setting aside of the impugned order on the ground that the State Commission has awarded multiple reliefs and the rate of interest awarded is also exorbitant. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record carefully. 6. During arguments, it was admitted by learned Counsel for both the parties that the possession of the plot in question had been handed over by the Builder to the Complainants on 11.06.2019 and that the necessary payments with regard to the final dues had been settled by the Complainants. The only issue that survives for consideration in this matter pertains to the quantum of compensation for the delay in handing over the possession and other compensation/costs awarded. 7. Learned Counsel for the Developer, relying on Wg Cdr Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Others vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., and Others (2020) 16 SCC 512, argued that the compensation awarded @ 9% p.a. was exorbitant and that a more reasonable rate of interest may be considered. It was also argued that the interest should be payable till the date of offer of possession and that the compensation of ₹1,50,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and litigation costs be re-considered in view of the fact that the compensation by way of interest has been granted. 8. It was admitted by learned Counsel for the Complainants that the possession of the plot in question had been taken on payment of the various dues which had been charged by the Developer. It was argued that the compensation awarded by the State Commission was fair and just in light of the fact that additional amounts had been charged by the Complainants at the time of handing over of possession. 9. From the material on record and the submissions made, it is manifest that the only surviving issue in this matter is the quantum of compensation for the delay in handing over the possession to the Complainants. Possession was handed over by the Developer to the Complainants on 11.06.2019 during the pendency of the Complaint before the State Commission. Complainants have taken possession on payment of the requisite dues which they were required to do. 10. As regards the compensation for the delay in handing over of possession, the Hon’ble Supreme court in Wg Cdr Arifur Rahman Khan (supra) has held that interest @ 6% p.a. is fair and just considering that the Complainant is also being granted possession of a plot which has its own appreciated value. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in DLF Homes Panchkula Limited vs. D. S. Dhanda etc., Civil Appeal No.4910-4941 of 2019, decided on 10.05.2019 that awarding multiple compensations for a singular deficiency in service is not justified. Therefore, the award of ₹1,50,000/- inclusive of litigation costs along with delay compensation @ 9% p.a. is considered to be excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. As possession has been handed over, the Respondent is already enjoying the property in question. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is allowed partly and the following directions are issued: (i) The Developer shall pay to the Complainants compensation for the delay in handing over the possession in the form of interest @ 6% p.a. from the due date of possession till the actual date of possession within eight weeks, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.; (ii) The Developer shall pay litigation costs of ₹50,000/- to the Complainants. 12. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. All the pending applications shall stand disposed of. |
