This appeal has been filed by the appellant – Emaar MGF Land Ltd. against the order dated 27.06.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the State Commission’), passed in C.C. No. 263 of 2015.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that respondent / complainant was approached by the agent of the appellant / opposite parties with a lucrative offer of investing into their project namely “Mohali Plots” situated in Sector 106, Mohali. As such, the complainant decided to invest into the project and applied for the plot in the project of the appellant / Opposite Parties. Thereafter, Plot Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 28.02.2011 at Mohali. As per mutual agreement, the appellant / Opposite Parties allotted plot bearing No.1, measuring 610 sq. yards for the total sale price of Rs.1,11,69,710/- and out of the total sale consideration, the complainant paid the booking amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.22,64,625/- as preferred location charges, which was to be paid, as he had chosen corner plot. It was further alleged that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession was to be delivered to the complainant within a period of 12 months from the date of execution of the Agreement and in the event of failure of the possession, the appellant / opposite parties will be liable to pay to the complainant a penalty of Rs.50/- per sq. yards per month for such period of delay beyond 18 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. It is further alleged that the possession was supposed to be delivered on or before 28.02.2012.Thereafter, the size of the plot of the respondent / complainant was revised from 610 sq. yards to 297 sq. yards.In furtherance of the new application for allotment, the respondent / complainant was issued provisional allotment letter dated 19.07.2012 by the appellant / opposite parties in respect of plot no. 1, sector 106, Mohali alongwith a schedule of payment.On 22.03.2013, the appellant / opposite party applied to GMADA despite being exempted by GMADA from obtaining a completion certificate.On 03.02.2014, the appellant issued an intimation of possession to the respondent / complainant for plot in question after developing all the amenities in accordance with the Buyer’s Agreement.The appellant / opposite party mentioned that compensation for delay in delivery of possession has already been credited in the account of the respondent / complainant.Thereafter, the respondent / complainant sent a legal notice dated 13.03.2014 to the appellant / opposite party seeking possession of the unit and for withdrawal of the charges demanded by the appellants in respect of the same.

3.      Aggrieved, the respondent / complainant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission being C.C. No. 263/2015.The complaint was resisted by the appellant / opposite party on the ground that intimation of possession was given on 03.02.2014, however, the respondent / complainant did not come forward to take the possession.The main prayer in the complaint was possession and to quash the letter dated 03.02.2014 which was sent as an intimation of possession alongwith demand of interest for late payment of instalments.In spite of the fact that main prayer was for the possession, the State Commission ordered refund of the paid amount alongwith compounded interest @15% per annum.The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the interest can be considered as part of compensation and it is generally awarded in the form of simple interest and currently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded interest @ 9% per annum in case of refund in Kolkata West International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deva Asis Rudra, II (2019) CPJ 29 (SC).Thus the order of the State Commission in respect of compounded interest @ 15% per annum is not justified.

4.      It was further argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the State Commission has also awarded compensation of ₹3 lacs for mental agony and harassment.  The learned counsel stated that when the State Commission has granted interest which is also in the form of compensation, separate compensation for mental agony and harassment is not justified. 

5.       Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the State Commission has wrongly held that the possession was offered on 03.02.2014 without obtaining the completion certificate.In this regard, the learned counsel stated that the project of the appellant / opposite party was exempted under Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA) from all the provisions of the PAPRA. Therefore, the possession was totally legal and State Commission has erred in this regard.

6.       It was further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is already a provision in the agreement that in case of any dispute between the parties, matter will be referred under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.As both the parties have agreed to go for the arbitration, filing of the complaint before the State Commission was not legal and the State Commission should not have admitted the complaint.

7.       Learned counsel for the appellant also raised question of pecuniary jurisdiction that the State Commission did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the total amount paid by the complainant was ₹62,95,955/- and if the interest @ 18% per annum is added to this amount, the amount would cross ₹ 1 crore which falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

8.       On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent / complainant stated that the appellant / opposite party vide its letter dated 03.02.2014 raised a demand for penalty in the form of interest for depositing the installments with delay.When the demand was made and intimation of possession was given vide letter dated 03.02.2014, there was no development at the site, therefore, there was no question of taking possession.The State Commission has considered all the issues that have been raised here in the present appeal and reasonable order has been passed by the State Commission for refund of the amount paid by the complainant.Though in the complaint, first prayer was for possession, however, there was alternative prayer in the complaint for refund of the amount.Therefore, it cannot be said that the State Commission has ordered refund without any prayer.The learned counsel further stated that the main objection of the opposite party / appellant is in respect of the compounded interest @ 15% per annum.In this regard, the learned counsel stated that this Commission has been granting interest at least @12% per annum in refund cases.The interest awarded by the State Commission is commensurate with the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

9.      I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused record.

10.     On the maintainability of the complaint, it is to be noted that this Commission in Aftab Singh Vs. Emaar MGF Limited & Anr., CC No.701 of 2015. decided on 13.07.2017, has held that inspite of clause being in agreement for arbitration, a party can approach the consumer forum.  This judgment of this Commission has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, I do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the complaint was not maintainable before the State Commission.  Even if the State Commission has not considered the fact that the appellant / opposite party was exempted from various provisions of the PAPRA Act, therefore, no completion certificate was required for this construction, the fact remains that the complainant found that there was no development at the plot when the intimation of possession was given on 03.02.2014 and hence the complainant decided not to take possession.  This was the purchase of a plot and if the total project or the area is not developed and a person cannot build a house on the plot, therefore, if he seeks refund, it is perfectly in order.  The State Commission has given other reasons for ordering refund and therefore, only on one ground, order of the State Commission cannot be reversed. 

11.      Now coming to the main question of interest, it is seen that the State Commission has ordered interest @15% per annum compounded quarterly and this seems to be at higher side keeping in view the current interest scenario and trend of orders being passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Commission.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Kolkata West International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deva Asis Rudra (supra) has reduced the rate of interest from12% per annum awarded on amount of refund by this Commission to 9% per annum.  In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it appropriate to order that the appellant / opposite party shall pay simple interest @ 9% per annum instead of interest @ 15% compounded quarterly.  Once the appellant / opposite party is getting relief in the rate of interest substantially, I do not find any justification for reducing the amount of compensation of ₹3 lacs granted by the State Commission.

12.      Based on the above discussion, F.A. No. 975 of 2016 is partly allowed and order of the State Commission is modified to the extent that interest granted on the refund amount shall be only simple interest @ 9% per annum instead of interest @ 15% compounded quarterly.The compensation and cost of litigation awarded by the State Commission are maintained.The appellant / opposite party is directed to comply with this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt / service of this order.