1.      The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (hereinafter to be referred as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No.653 of 2013, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant was allowed. The operative portion of impugned Order dated 29.01.2020 is as below:

“23. The aforesaid conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is admitted position that the OP has sold the flat in question to third party and has also received a sum of Rs.28,06,070/- from the complainants. I, therefore, allow this complaint and direct the OP to refund an amount of Rs.28,06,070/- alongwith the interest of 12% p.a. from the date of each deposit till realization. There is no separate order for compensation as interest has been awarded in form of compensation. OP is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation.”

2.      Being aggrieved, the Opposite Party filed the instant Appeal along with IA/10707/2021, an application for condonation for delay of 241 days in filing this First Appeal. For the reason stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

3.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused material available on record.

4.      The sole question remaining in this Appeal is whether the Ld. State Commission rightly awarded interest @ 12% per annum instead of the 8% per annum mentioned in paragraph 16 of the impugned order. It is noted that in terms of Clause 12 of the agreement, the Appellant/OP had agreed to refund the amount paid by the allottee with simple interest at the rate of 8%. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Respondents, who are the Complainants in the present matter, entered into an agreement with the Appellant (OP) and booked a flat. It is also admitted that the Respondents paid Rs.28,06,070/- out of the total consideration of Rs.30,00,580/-. The Respondents have alleged that the Appellant failed to deliver possession of the flat in question and subsequently sold it to a third party. Consequently, the Respondents have sought a refund of the amount paid.

5.      This Commission, vide Order dated 05.01.2022, issued notice to the Respondents, specifically addressing the issue of awarding interest @ 12% per annum instead of the 8% per annum. Additionally, the Appellant was directed to deposit the entire amount, along with 8% interest per annum from the date of deposit, with State Commission. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:-

“Issue notice to the Respondents on the Memo of Appeal as also Interim Applications, confined to the question of awarding interest @ 12% per annum instead of @ 8% p.a. mentioned in paragraph 16 of the Impugned Order, returnable on 13.04.2022.

   Mr. Praveen Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, on instructions received, has made a statement that the Appellant shall deposit the entire amount along with 8% interest per annum from the date of deposit instead of 12% interest as awarded by the State Commission, within four weeks from today.

   The operation of the Impugned Order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi shall remain stayed.  However, as per statement given by Mr. Praveen Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, the entire amount along with 8% interest per annum from the date of deposit be deposited with the State Commission, Delhi, within four weeks from today.”

6.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP contended that as per order of this Commission dated 05.01.2022, the entire decree amount with interest @ 8% has already been deposited. The learned Counsel asserted that grant of interest at the exorbitant rate of 12% from respective dates of deposit is excessive. The Appellant in the present case offered possession of the flat and requested the Respondents to make the balance payment. Despite reminders and warning letters, the Respondents failed to make the payment on time, leading to the lawful cancellation of the flat by the Appellant. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant cited several judgments, including Jaypee Greens Vs. Yogesh Kumar Garg MANU/CF/0792/ 2023, Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiror MANU/SC/0433/ 2022, DLF Homes Vs DS Dhanda MANU/SC/0744/ 2019, and NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Shri Ram Trivedi (2021) 5 SCC 273. 7.      These judgments, according to the Counsel, hold that interest rates ranging from 6% to 9% are fair and reasonable to balance the equities between the parties. Given that the contract between the parties stipulated interest at 8%, the Counsel argued that the grant of interest should be restricted to 8% only.

8.      The learned Counsel for the Complainants/Respondents vehemently argued that the Appellant failed to fulfil its contractual obligations and could not demonstrate that the delay in completing the flat and offering its possession to the Respondents was due to circumstances beyond its control. This, according to the Counsel, constitutes deficiency on the part of the Appellant. Furthermore, instead of delivering possession of the flat in question, the Appellant sold it to a third party, despite there being a stay from the Hon’ble State Commission. The flat was sold for a total consideration of Rs.88,00,000/- on 21.12.2013, and since then, the Appellant has been enjoying that money. The Respondents relied on the following judgments to support their argument:

1. Deepak Agarwal & Anr. Versus Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., CC No. 3879/2017, decided on 21.01.2020.
2. Ashoka Investments Co. Versus United Towers India Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 4913/2015, decided on 11.10.2022.

9.      Since the Appellant has complied with the Order of this Commission dated 05.01.2022 and deposited the amount paid by the Respondents along with interest @8%. The issue remaining pertains to whether the compensation in the form of interest @12% awarded by the State Commission is justified? The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, in Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019 decided on 7.4.2022 has held as under:-

“We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts.  The Commission in the Order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit.  We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interest shall be payable from the dates of such deposits.

At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just.”

10.    It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, in CA Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 that multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable. Therefore, the award of Compensation in the form of interest by the State Commission is found tenable.

11.    In view of the above, the Appeal is consequently allowed in part to the extent of the awarded rate of interest, the impugned Order is modified with the following directions: -

ORDER

1. The Appellant shall refund the amount of Rs.28,06,070/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum to the Complainants from the dates of deposit till its complete realization, within 2 months from the date of this Order. In the delay beyond two months, the rate of simple interest applicable for such delayed period shall be @ 12% per annum; 

2. The Appellant shall pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainants as costs of litigation within 2 months, from the date of this Order.

12.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. The Registry may release the Statutory Deposit, if any due, in favour of the Appellant, after compliance of this order.