JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

The present batch of First Appeals has been filed by the Appellants against various Allottees Respondents challenging their respective impugned orders. Since the facts and questions of law involved in all the Appeals are similar, except for minor variations in the dates of events, amounts, etc., so these Appeals are being decided by this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, First Appeal bearing No. 2013 of 2018 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from First Appeal bearing No. 2013 of 2018. 

2.      This Appeal challenges the impugned order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in Consumer Complaint No.251 of 2016. Vide such order, the State Commission allowed the Complaint of the Respondent/ Complainant and ordered the Appellants/ Opposite Parties to pay interest @15% per annum from 08.12.2011 to 07.09.2014 on the amounts deposited by the Respondent/ Complainant from the dates of the respective deposits.

3.      The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant, being lured by the advertisements of the Opposite Parties/Appellants vide advertisement dated 01.10.2005, had applied Fora Pent House – ‘B’ at AWHO, Sector 27, Panchkula. It was averred that the tentative cost was fixed at Rs.33.74 Lacs and the tentative date for completion was 2008. The Complainant was allotted a pent house-B unit vide booking letter dated 09.08.2006. It was further averred by the Complainant that he was offered a penthouse no. 806 on the 8^th&9^th floor, Block-G with parking space CPS vide booking letter dated 09.08.2006 with cost now being fixed at Rs.38,70,000/- excluding the parking with estimated completion time being 3 years. It was further averred that the Opposite Party increased the cost and extended the due date on various occasions. It was further averred that the Complainant was issued letter dated 03.01.2014 vide which possession was to be taken however, the Complainant was unable to take possession of the unit since it was incomplete and the material used was of inferior quality. It was further averred that the Complainant paid huge additional money of approximately 20 Lacs as the price of flat was Rs.33,74,000/- in the advertisement whereas the total sum paid by the Complainant was Rs.55,70,000/-. Hence, the complaint was filed by him before the State Commission claiming refund of Rs.20 Lacs, compensation and interest.

4.      The Opposite Parties appeared before the State Commission and resisted the Complaint and denied all the material allegations made therein, thereby denying any deficiency in service on their part. It was contended by the Opposite Parties that their object was to provide dwelling units to serving and retired army personnel and their widows on ‘No Profit and No Loss Basis’. It was further contended that the Possession was handed over to the Complainant on 01.09.2014. It was further contended that the Complainant never raised any issue relating to the final cost or any other issues relating to the Pent House and the unit was taken by the Complainant without any protest. It was further contended that all the defects (if any) were rectified to the satisfaction of allottees before taking over the possession. It was further contended that the price of the units were tentative and were bound to escalate. It was further contended that a soil investigation was carried de-novo which resulted in restructuring and preparation of foundation de-novo causing substantial delay in commencement of work apart from attracting additional cost of Rs.3.66 crores. The foundation design and drawing were revised by the architects and structural engineers and the same were handed over to the contractor for execution in May, 2008. It was further contended that pursuant to the order of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, a ban was imposed on mining in the state of Haryana since March, 2010 and the ban continued till 2012 which consequently, hampered the progress of work. It was further contended that during the period of construction, the State government imposed new taxes resulting in increase in cost. It was further contended that in December, 2011, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) raised a demand of Rs.18.58 crores towards enhanced compensation of the land. The revised and additional costs were duly and regularly informed by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant. It was further contended that the Complainant is neither a consumer nor the Complaint is within limitation. Hence, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.    

5.      The Ld. State Commission further vide its impugned order noted the contention of the Opposite Parties that HUDA and the Opposite Parties had entered into agreement dated 18.07.2006 for supply of electricity to the project. In the month of December, 2008, the Opposite Parties applied for sanction of electricity load for the project however, the same was not approved before December, 2011 by stating that the demanded load could be fed only through 33KV/66KV system or two independent 11KV feeders whereas the electrical connection to the project should have been provided by HUDA in terms of agreement.

6.      The Ld. State Commission vide its impugned order dated 17.04.2018 observed inter alia-

“15. In view of the aforesaid orders, the present complaint is to be disposed of on the same terms on which case of Lt. Col. Ajmer Singh (Retd.) case was decided. Since the matter has already been decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi and the Hon’ble Apex Court, the contention raised by learned counsel for the opposite parties and the judgements relied upon by him are of no help.

16. It is not in dispute that the electric connection was provided to the flat owners by the opposite parties on December 08^th, 2011 and the possession of the flat was handed over to the Complainant on September 07^th, 2014 (Exhibit C-7). So, in view of aforesaid judgement Lt. Colonel Ajmer Singh, the complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum from December 08^th, 2011 to September 07^th, 2014, that is, 2 years 08 months and 30 days on the amounts deposited by him from the dates of respective deposits payable by the opposite parties within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order.  It is ordered accordingly.  The Complaints disposed of”

7.      Being aggrieved by the above order, present First Appeal has been filed by Appellants/ Opposite Parties. It is averred by them that the Respondent/ Complainant is neither a consumer nor the disputes raised by the Complainant are Consumer Disputes. It is further averred that the flat has been purchased for investment purposes. It is further averred that the Appellant Society received Rs.56,05,370/- from the Respondent/ Complainant out of which Rs.53,94,000/- was the cost of the flat and other common and community amenities, Rs.1,91,360/- was the cost of car parking space, Rs.10/- as E-banking charges and Rs.20,000/- as (RWA) Society Charges and the said payments were made by the Complainant and the physical possession was taken over by the Complainant on 01.09.2014 without any protest and the Complainant never raised any issue. It is further averred that defects, were pointed out by the allottees after which the same were rectified by the contractor within the one-year defect rectification period and the Complainant has failed to place on record evidence towards the alleged defect. It is further averred that the Complaint was barred by limitation being filed beyond two years. It is further submitted that the 51 allottees of the flats in the group housing complex in question also filed jointly a similar consumer complaint bearing no. 221 of 2017 before this Hon’ble Commission which was dismissed vide judgement dated 19.05.2017 on the ground of limitation. It is further averred that time was not the essence of the contract and the cost of the flat being tentative was subject to further increase and all the terms of the booking letter were accepted by the Complainant without any objections. It is further averred that the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 10.08.2006 gave an option to the Complainant to withdraw from the scheme without any withdrawal penalty being imposed and the deposits were to be refunded with interest and the Complainant without protest accepted the revised cost. It is further averred that the Appellant had commenced execution of foundation of the building blocks.  However, the work had to be suspended and soil investigation was carried out de-novo and on the basis of fresh soil investigation report, provision of “Raft Foundation” instead of “Isolated footing Foundation” was recommended by the Technical and Structural consultants of the Appellant Society. Consequently, the foundation of the building blocks restructuring and preparation of the foundation of the building blocks de-novo resulted in substantial delay in commencement of work apart from an additional cost of Rs.3.66 Crores. It is further averred that on account of heavy rains during 2008, the work could not progress beyond excavation of the foundations.   As such, the delay of the execution of the work at project site was further compounded. It is further contended that pursuant to Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, a ban was imposed on mining in the State of Haryana since March, 2010 which was in force till 2012, resulting in difficulty in availability of sand, bricks, etc. thereby hampering progress of work. It is further averred that during the progress of construction, the state government imposed new taxes resulting in increased cost. It is further averred that HUDA raised a demand of Rs.18.58 crores towards enhanced compensation of the land allotted and even the project cost towards material, labour and services had gone up by 80% which increased the project cost. Also, due to financial crisis faced by the contractor, the work on project slowed down. It is further averred that the Complainant took physical possession of the unit and stated in his Handing over/ taking over certificate dated 01.09.2014 that the Complainant had physically inspected and verified the dwelling unit and the common usage area, and that he is fully satisfied. Hence, it is contended that the Complainant at no point of time protested either the increase in cost of the flat, car parking space or development of the project, as he was time and again informed that the delay in due date was due to the reasons beyond the control of the Appellant Society. It is further averred that the judgement dated 21.01.2014 of the Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No.642 of 2013 is just and applicable to complaint herein, and that the judgement dated 16.02.2015 of this Hon’ble commission in RP No.1982 of 2014 is not applicable. It is further stated that the 11KV HT Connection which was to be provided by HUDA was not provided and the same was subsequently provided by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. in 2013.     

8.      Hence, the present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellants on the following grounds:

1. That the Appellant Society has explained the reasons in detail for escalation of costs while filing its Affidavit in evidence with supporting documents;
2. That the State Commission has failed to appreciate the applicability of the judgements relied by the Appellants to the relief prayed by the Complainant which ought to have resulted in dismissal of the complaint;
3. That the Ld. State Commission failed to observe that the ratio of the judgement dated 16.02.2015 of this Hon’ble commission in RP No.1982 of 2014 filed by Lt. Col. Ajmer Singh was not applicable;
4. That the Ld. State Commission failed to observe that the Complaint was filed many months after 2 years’ period of limitation was over;
5. That the Ld. State Commission has failed to observe that inspite of the fact that this Hon’ble Commission had incorrectly observed the year of the Appellant being provided the electricity to the housing complex in the year 2013 has yet once again arbitrarily observed the electricity was made available to the Appellant at the site with effect from 08.12.2011, and that the allottees were thereafter handed over the physical possession from July, 2013 onwards;
6. That the Ld. State Commission failed to observe that there is no delay in development of the project as time is not the essence as opposed to what has been held by State Commission, failing to apply the ratio of Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711 which was relied upon in the present case;
7. That the Ld. State Commission has overlooked and ignored the ratio In Re: Ashok Khanna v. Ghaziabad Development Authority IV (2009) CPJ 115 NC;  
8. That the Complainant cannot be granted a refund of Rs.20 Lacs towards alleged additional cost as is settled in various judgements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission;    

9.      It has been argued by the Respondent that similar bunch of cases of same project on same cause of action in RP No. 1982 of 2014 titled as “Lt. Col. Ajmer Singh (Retd.) vs. Adjutant General & Others” was decided on 16.02.2015 in favour of the Petitioner by this Commission, and the SLP and subsequently the Review Petition filed by AWHO against the said order were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 06.04.2016 and 11.08.2016 respectively. It has further been argued that the Appellants have relied on the judgement of this Commission wherein a similar case of same project has been dismissed due to delay. However, in the same matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.12.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 18837 of 2017 has condoned the delay. It has further been argued that the Respondent on various occasions brought his grievances before the Project Manager.   However, the Appellants did not pay any heed to it. It was further argued that a Board of Officers was appointed to look into the complaints of defects and sub-standard material used, and the short comings found in the project have been mentioned in the report. It has been further argued that in the report, the Board of Officers had found that external electrification work was required to be completed by 23.11.2011 but it was completed on 31.03.2013. It has been further argued that the AWHO itself failed to submit the requisite test report to HUDA which is a mandatory requirement to release the electric connection. The test report was submitted by AWHO on 07.06.2013 and thereafter immediately, the connection was released on 24.08.2013. Hence, the release of electricity was not due to fault of HUDA but due to non-compliance by the Appellant. It was further argued that power connection is only given when construction is complete and Occupation certificate is obtained and the Appellants obtained the Occupation Certificate in October, 2013.   Till then, only a temporary connection is given. It was further argued that there was deficient rainfall in Panchkula in 2008. It was further argued that due to the redesigning of foundation, the due date was extended only by 3 months.

10. The details of all remaining connected matters are as follows:-

11.    Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.  Perused the material available on Record.

12.    Reliance of the Appellants is on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Major Sandeep Vinayak & Ors. Vs. Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO) & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.8251 of 2022” which was preferred by several other allottees in the same project who had approached this Commission by way of Consumer Case No.221 of 2017, which was dismissed by a single Member Bench of this Commission on 06/06/2022 with the following conclusion:-

“None of the complainants have raised any objection relating to delayed compensation at the time of taking possession, therefore, they cannot be allowed to raise objection in this respect after such a long time. In such circumstances, I do not find that the complainants are entitled for delayed compensation. AWHO is working on ‘no profit no loss’ basis and is not a profit making organization. It has realized the amount of increased costs from the complainants time to time, which were factored due to (i) society corpus charges, (ii) floor differential charges, (iii) parking charges, (iv) enhanced land compensation, (v) imposition of service tax and labour welfare cess since 2010, (vi) price rise of building materials, (vii) change in norms of Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is dismissed”

13.    Aggrieved by such dismissal of their Complaints, several of the Complainants approached the Hon’ble Apex Court to challenge the dismissal.  Consequently, the Civil Appeal No.8251 of 2022 was disposed off by the Hon’ble Apex Court by modifying the aforesaid Judgment and Order of this Commission on 06/06/2022. The entire text of the Order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in deciding the said Appeal is reproduced as below:-

“Delay Condoned.

    The present Appeals relate to 140 original Complainants who had approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

    Having heard Shri Gaurav Agarwal and Shri Sunil Fernandes, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants/Original Complainants and Shri Tushar Mehta, Ld. Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Respondents and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to have quietus, we modify the impugned common Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2022 passed in Consumer Case No.221/2017 and direct that the Appellants be paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each by the Respondents towards lump sum compensation for the delay in handing over the possession, to be within a period of eight weeks from today.

    It is made clear that the present Order is passed in the peculiar facts and Circumstances of the case and the same may not be cited as precedent.

    The Appeal stand disposed of in terms of the above accordingly.  No costs.”

14.    Therefore, it is the contention of the Appellants that in view of the decision of this Commission in CC/221/2017 “Major Sandeep Vinayak & Ors.” (Supra), the Complainants/Respondents would not be entitled to any compensation on account of the delay in delivering possession of their respective units to them, or at the most they can be granted a sum of      Rs.2 Lakhs each towards lump sum compensation for the delay in handing over possession, as was subsequently directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8251 of 2022.  From their side, the Complainants have submitted that the Judgment and Order of this Commission in CC/221/2017 is per incuriam since an earlier decision of this Commission in the case of “Ld. Col Ajmer Singh (Retd.) V/s Adjutant General & 2 Others”, which was decided by a Division Bench of this Commission on 16/02/2015 in RP/1982/2014.  The Complainant/Revision Petitioner in that case had filed his Complaint similarly in the District Forum for compensation on account of delayed payment and certain other deficiencies against the present Appellants as possession of his Apartment/Dwelling Unit in the same project of the present Appellants had been similarly delayed, which Complaint was allowed by the District Forum, which directed that the Complainant be delivered possession of the Flats/ Dwelling Unit by the Opposite Party/Appellants along with delayed compensation at the rate of 9% p.a. on the entire deposit made by him.  The Appeal against such Order of the District Forum, preferred at the instance of the present Appellants was accepted by the Ld. State Commission, after which the Complainant filed Revision Petition No.1982 of 2014 before this Commission, which was finally allowed in his favour by the Commission on 16/02/2015.  The very same reasons for the delay in completing the construction and inability to deliver possession of the Dwelling Unit to the Complainant in time, which were urged on behalf of the present Appellants were closely considered and not found to be convincing by this Commission, which therefore allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the Order of the State Commission.  This Commission also enhanced the compensation by way of interest to 15% p.a from 9% p.a. as had been directed by the District Forum originally, but such enhanced interest was awarded only for a  limited period of 1 ½ years.  The most relevant extracts from the observations of this Commission in the said RP/1982/2014 have been quoted verbatim by the Hon’ble State Commission in Para No.11 of its impugned Judgment and Order. We do not need to reproduce the same here, as the same are now a matter of Record.

15.  Against such decision of this Commission, the present Appellants had filed SLP Nos.15118 to 15122 of 2015 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which was dismissed by the Apex Court on 31/03/2016.  The Review Petition Nos. 2472 to 2477 of 2016 thereafter preferred by the Appellants were also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 11/08/2016. Thus, the Division Bench decision of this Commission in the case of “Lt. Col Ajmer Singh (Supra)” has now attained finality.  Since it arose out of the alleged deficiencies and delay in delivery of possession to the concerned Allottees in respect the very same project of the Appellants which is the subject matter of the present Appeals, and the entire defence raised by the Appellants before the District Forum and the Ld. State Commission was also found to be untenable by this Commission, so the aforesaid decision is now binding upon this Commission in the present Appeals.  There is certainly merit in the contention of the Respondents that the decision of this Commission in the subsequent Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2017 in Major Sandeep Vinayak (Supra) is per incuriam  is correct.  This is so because a complete proposal of the said single Member Bench decision goes to show that the earlier decision of the Division Bench in “Lt. Col. Ajmer Singh (Retd.) (Supra)” was neither referred, to nor discussed anywhere by the Ld. Single Member.

16. Further, the contention of the Appellants that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8251 of 2022 arising out this Commission’s decision in said Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2017 is also not of much consequence since as can be seen from the entire text of the Order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court on 16.02.2015, it is clear that the final disposal was not on merits which were nowhere even referred to in the said Order, but that lump sum compensation at the rate of Rs.2 Lakhs to each of the Appellants had been granted “to have quietus”.  But the very fact that some compensation had been summarily granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court inspite of dismissal of their Complaints by this Commission would itself go to indicate that even the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that those Appeals certainly were entitled to delayed compensation, which was fixed at Rs.2 Lakhs each only “to have quietus” and without considering or commenting on the relevant merits of the dispute involved, obviously since the number of Appellants in the said Appeal was very high being as many as 140 which was noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court itself in the very first line of its Order.  Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also specifically mentioned that the Order is not to be cited as a Precedent.

17. Consequently, the decision of this Commission in RP/1982/2014    “Lt. Col. Ajmer Singh (Retd.)” (Supra) would clearly and substantially governed the fate of all these Appeals.

18.  However, in a subsequent decision in RP/167/2017 (“Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization & Anr. Vs. Lt. Col Ranjit Singh (Retd.)]”, (RP/167/2017) the Division Bench of this Commission in which one of us was also a Member held that in view of some subsequent decision such as in Vishal Malik & Anr. in CC/1238/2017, delay compensation at the rate of 8% p.a. would be more appropriate than the rate of 15% p.a. which was awarded by the State Commission to the Complainants.  Needless to mention, the Complaint in the said case, and finally the Revision Petition (RP/167/2017) arising from the same in this Commission, was also for the alleged deficiency and delay of compensation to the Allottee by the present Appellants in the very same project. This  Commission in deciding the Revision Petition finally recorded inter alia:-

12. “ The main issue raised by the Petitioners is about the high rate of interest granted by the State Commission and that the delay was due to reasons beyond its control. The Objection that the delay was due to reasons beyond the control of the Petitioners or due to Force Majeure circumstances is devoid of merit.  In this regard, attention is drawn to Order of this Commission in CC 379 of 2013 Sivarama Sarma Jonnalagadda & Anr vs. M/s Maruthi Corporation Limited & Anr decided on 21.09.2021 wherein it was held that:

“We are of the view that that the Complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession and the act of the Opposite Party in relying on force majeure clause while retaining the amounts deposited by the Complainant, is not on only an act of deficiency of service but also amounts to unfair trade practice.”

 We also deem it fit to rely on the judgment of this Commission dated 16.02.2015 in Col. Ajmer Singh, Retd. (Supra) where the objections on account of such force majeure reasons were discussed at length and rejected.

13. Further, AWHO being a respectable and responsible organisation should have been extra careful in choosing suitable land for developing the project.  We expect better due diligence from AWHO in this regard. AWHO cannot compete with private developers and builders and give excuse of force majeure to cover up the delay.  Delay in allotment of land and getting statutory clearances cannot be a good reason as these should have been factored in well in advance before issuing the advertisement.  It looks that AWHO was in a hurry to issue the advertisement fixed and then get possession of land.  Heavy rain and change in foundation delay by the contractor, etc. cannot be a valid argument for such long delay.  Even the argument of mining ban is not convincing.
14. The AWHO had advertised for project on 1.10.2005. The tentative date of possession as per the advertisement was 2008.  The Complainant had booked for a dwelling Unit way back on 02.11.2004 after paying Rs. 90,535/- to the Petitioners. As per Clause 10 of the revised booking letter dated 04.12.2007, the Unit was expected to be ready for handing over by end 2010. The possession was given on 17.07.2014 the Complainant got possession after 10 years of booking.  This is a very long time. There is definitely deficiency of service on the part of petitioner, which is a professional organization engaged in construction of dwelling units for a long time.  There are a number of Case Laws wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court  has decided  favourably on the right of the buyers for getting fair delay compensation in case of undue and unreasonable delay by the Developer in giving possession beyond reasonable time. 
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent case of Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 5785 of 2019 decided on 11.1.2021, which has held as under:-

“We are of the view that allottees at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 in Chart A are obligated to take possession of the apartments, since the construction was completed, and possession offered on 28.06.2019, after the issuance of Occupation Certificate on 31.05.2019. The Developer is however obligated to pay Delay Compensation for the period of delay which has occurred from 27.11.2018 till the date of offer of possession was made to the allottees.” 

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken similar view in Wg. Cdr.  Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 16 SCC 512 decided on 24.08.2020 which has categorically held and observed as under:

“36… The Developer in the present case has undertaken to provide a service in the nature of developing residential flats with certain amenities and remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. Consequently, we are unable to subscribe to the view of the NCDRC that flat purchasers who obtained possession or executed Deeds of Conveyance have lost their right to make claim for compensation for the delayed handing over of the flats. 

17. With regard to rate of delay compensation, the present case is fit to put reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Supertech Ltd. Vs. Rajni Goyal (2019) 17 SCC 681 decided on 23.10.2018, wherein, it has been held as under :-

“However, the Commission held that since there was a delay in handing over possession of the flat to the Respondent purchaser, the Appellant builder was liable to pay interest to the Respondent purchaser by way of compensation.  The scheduled date for handing over possession was 31.10.2013.  The Appellant builder had issued the pre-possession letter on 31.10.2015.  As per the Respondent purchaser, the Appellant builder did not have the occupancy certificate on that date. The Commission directed the Appellant builder to pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% p.a. from 1.11.2013 till the date on which possession was actually offered to the Respondent purchaser.

The Appellant builder interalia submitted that possession of the flat was offered to the Respondent purchaser in December, 2015 after obtaining the completion certificate for the building. Even though the agreement provided for delivery of possession by 31.10.2013, the delay occurred because of various legal impediments in timely completion of the project because of various orders passed by the National Green Tribunal. The delay ought to be computed from six months after 31.10.2013 i.e. from 1.5.2014 by taking into consideration, the 6 months grace period provided in the agreement. Furthermore, the period of interest should close on April, 2016 when the full occupancy certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent purchaser herself in para 4 (j) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant builder had obtained the completion certificate as late as April, 2016 with respect to delay in handing over possession.  The Respondent purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession.  In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the period of compensation of interest must be computed from 1.5.2014 till 30.4.2016 at the rate awarded by the Commission.  The Order of the Commission is modified only to the extent mentioned hereinabove. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.” 

18. In another matter of this Commission, in the case of Vishal Malik & Anr. in CC No.1238 of 2017 decided on 29.3.2019 has observed as under:-

          “12. In M/s Supertech Ltd. Vs. Rajni Goyal (Civil Appeal Nos.6649-50 of 2018) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23.10.2018, this Commission while directing delivery of possession of the allotted flat to the Complainant/respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to pay compensation to him in the form of interest @8% p.a. The direction for payment of interest 8% p.a. was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, though the period upto which the compensation was payable was restricted till the date on which the Occupancy Certificate had been obtained.  Thus, the award of compensation for the delay in delivery of possession, by way of interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f. the committed date for delivery of possession has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred recent decision.” 

19. We think that it would be justified to consider date of possession given in the revised booking letter i.e. end of 2010 as promised date of possession.  The total delay in giving possession of the flat will be 3 years 7 months for which the Complainant/ Respondent should get the fair delay compensation.  If the date in Advertisement is taken into consideration then the delay would be around 6 years.  The State Commission has ordered 15% rate of interest.  This is on the higher side.  Keeping in line with the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supertech Vs. Rajni Goyal (Supra), we consider 8% as a fair and reasonable delay compensation.
20. In view of the discussion above, we dismiss the Revision Petition as it is devoid of merit. The Order of the State commission is partly upheld and modified as under:

1. The Petitioners/Opposite Parties are directed to pay delay Compensation to the Respondent/Complainant @8 % per annum on the deposited amount from the proposed date of possession as per the Revised Booking letter i.e. 31.12.2010 till 16.07.2014, within 2 months of this Order, failing which an interest of 12% p.a. will be applicable.”
2. The compensation awarded as per above direction will be adjusted with the amount already received by the Respondent/ Complainant vide Order of the State Commission.

21. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

19. The Facts and Circumstances of all the present Appelas are therefore, fully covered by the ratio of this Commission’s decision in RP/167/2017.  Even the scheduled date for delivery of possession in the said case was earlier was 31/12/2010, as is so in the present Appeals.

20. Consequently, we dismiss these Appeals as being devoid of any merit and fully covered by this Commission’s decision in RP/167/2017.  Order of the State Commission is however partially modified to the extent that the delay compensation to the Respondents/Complainants shall be payable at the rate of 8% p.a. on their respective deposited amounts from the proposed date of possession as per their booking/revised booking letters, which shall be payable within two months of this Order, failing which an interest of 12 % p.a. will be applicable.  However, the Compensation thus awarded would be adjustable against any amount already received by the Complainants/Respondents.

(a) Parties to bear their own costs.

(b) All Pending Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.