1. The present Appeal has been filed against the order of the State Commission dated 20.07.2022 in CC No. 1010 of 2017 by the respondent / complainant ( hereinafter referred to as complainant). 2. Vide this impugned order, the State Commission had issued following directions: -2- “15. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of a. Rs.1,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the complainant; and b. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs.50,000/-; 16. The opposite party is also directed not to deduct any TDS on the amount being paid / refunded. Our view is fortified by the dicta of Bombay High Court in the case of Sainath Rajkumar Sarode & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in ( 2021) 283 Taxman 494 ( Bom).” 3. Vide this appeal and also during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Appellant has admitted that there had been delay in handing over of the possession. It is submitted that before the State Commission they could not present their case and they were proceeded ex parte. It is further submitted that State Commission had granted Rs.5,72,720/- which had been calculated @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month for the delay of 86 months in handing over of the possession to the complainant. It is submitted that while calculating this payable amount, the State Commission has not taken into consideration the amount of Rs.79,920/- which was paid towards the delayed compensation and it is prayed that the said amount be taken into consideration and the amount of Rs.5,72,720/- which had been awarded by the State Commission shall be accordingly modified. It is further -3- submitted that the Appellant could not take up any defence before the State Commission since they were proceeded ex parte as they did not appear subsequent to putting up their appearance and initially also did not file their written version. 4. It is argued on behalf of the complainant that complainant learned of this adjustment only after filing of the complaint and it is submitted that adjusted amount is much less than the amount to which complainant is entitled to. It is further submitted that order of the State Commission is based on the uncontradicted testimony of the complainant. It is submitted that Appellant although ex parte and did not put up any defence ,had filed its written submissions and notification issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways which was also considered by the State Commission and it cannot be said that State Commission had not given any hearing to the Appellant. 5. I have perused the file. It is an undisputed fact that there has been delay of 86 months in handing over of the possession to the complainant. It is also admitted that in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, the Appellant was liable to pay the delayed compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq. feet per month. The State Commission has calculated the delayed compensation as per the terms and conditions binding the parties and it has arrived at a figure of -4- Rs.5,72,720/- payable by the Appellant. It is brought to my notice by the Appellant that an amount of Rs.79,920/- had already been adjusted by the Appellant towards delayed compensation. This fact is not disputed by the complainant and it is admitted that this amount had been duly adjusted by the Appellant towards delayed compensation. In view of this, this amount needs to be adjusted while awarding the delayed compensation. 6. Accordingly, the Complainant is entitled to sum of Rs.4,92,800/- (Rs.5,72,720/- - Rs.79,920/-). Rest of the direction of the State Commission remains the same. The entire amount shall be paid within 6 weeks from today. In case, the Appellant fails to make the payment of the decretal amount within 6 weeks, appellant shall be liable to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on the decretal amount from the date of this order. 7. With this direction, the Appeal stands disposed of. | 
