1.       This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 04.04.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 611 of 2018.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the housing organisation (the appellants herein) and the complainant (the respondent herein) in person. We have also perused the material on record, including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 04.04.2019 and the memorandum of appeal.

3.       Briefly, the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs. 64,45,188/- with the housing organisation between 2013 to 2017 for a dwelling unit. Delivery of possession was to be made between 16^th and 31^st October 2017.  However possession was not delivered by the end of the assured period, or even within a reasonable period thence. The complainant approached the State Commission in July 2018. The State Commission passed its Order in April 2019. It ordered for refund of the amount deposited by the complainant with interest in respect of deposits made from March 2017 at the rate of 11% per annum along with lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment inclusive of cost of litigation.

4.       The State Commission appears to have passed a fairly well-appraised reasoned Order, aptly dealing with the issues relevant to the dispute. It has inter alia considered the report of the National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research (NITTTR) dated 18.09.2018 which was to the effect that the construction raised by the housing organisation contained many defects and it would take much time for setting the same right. It has also taken into consideration the letter dated 21.11.2018 from the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) to the effect that so far no completion certificate for the project had been issued. It has further observed that without the completion certificate a dwelling unit cannot be handed over. As such it has found the housing organization to be deficient in its service.

Extracts from the appraisal made by the State Commission are reproduced below for perusal:

6. There is no dispute of this fact that complainant is an Army Officer and he applied for above dwelling unit to OPs in the above project. The grievance of complainant is that OPs have charged the excessive amount from him, but it is without any force, because pricing is a factor which cannot be determined by the Consumer Forum, as per settled law of the land. The complainant has so far paid the amounts of Rs.64,45,188/- to OPs in this case, but OPs have not delivered the possession of the dwelling unit to him despite lapse of the stipulated period thereof. The complainant also relied upon the report of the National Institute of Technical Teacher Training and Research, Sector 26 Chandigarh (NITTTR) Ex.C-19 sent through letter dated 18.09.2018 to the effect that even the construction raised by OPs contains many defects and it would take much time for setting the same right. This report is supported by photographs, which are part of it. There is nothing on the record to discard the above report of NITTTR. There is no refuting evidence led by OPs to this report of the complainant on the record. The complainant also relied upon photographs vide Ex.C-15 to prove that even the construction to the extent it has been raised by OPs in the dwelling units contained many defects making it unworthy of delivery of possession to allottees. The complainant seeks refund of the amount primarily on the ground that the scheduled date for delivery of possession of dwelling unit to him, as agreed upon by OPs was uptil June 2017, vide Annexure R-4. His submission is that OPs have not yet completed the project and have not obtained the completion certificate from competent authority under PAPRA Act 1995, which is sine qua non for delivery of dwelling unit to allottees. He relied upon Ex.C-21 letter dated 21.11.2018, the letter written by Sub Divisional Engineer GMADA SAS Nagar to Superintendent (Coordination), PUDA, S.A.S. Nagar to the effect that so far no completion certificate for this project of OPs has been issued by the office. The clearance letter for handing over the dwelling unit is dated 08.11.2017 of OPs. The date for delivery of possession was in June 2017, as per Annexure R-4 of OPs, but these letters Ex.C-21 and C-22 have made out this fact on the record that the project was not completed even on 21.11.2018 by OPs, vide Ex.C-21, OPs failed to obtain the completion certificate from GMADA. As per report of NITTTR duly corroborated by photographs Ex.C-19 on the record, there are also defects in the construction to the extent it has been raised by OPs of the dwelling unit making it unworthy of habitation. The complainant paid the amounts of Rs.64,45,188/- to OPs by 13.10.2017, but OPs have not delivered the possession of the dwelling unit to him despite payment of substantial amounts by him. The counsel for OPs could not produce any completion certificate even during arguments in this case before us in the year 2019. We find infinitesimal merit in this submission of counsel for OPs that the project is complete, but without statutory completion certificate it is difficult to accept the contention of OPs. The project is governed by the provisions of PAPRA Act, 1995 and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder by the Punjab Government. No dwelling unit can be handed over to a person, who booked it, without completion of the project and without obtaining the completion certificate from the competent authorities. This is deficiency in service on the part of OPs, because they failed to complete the project by the scheduled date of June 2017.

5.       Learned counsel for the housing organization argues that rather than refund the complainant ought to take possession. Simultaneously however learned counsel also makes a submission that he was not sure and would have to ascertain from the housing organisation whether or not at this juncture any dwelling unit is available for giving possession to the complainant.

6.       We find these arguments to be incongruously self-defeating. Though it is being argued that possession of the unit ought to be taken by the complainant but at the same time even this is not clear whether a dwelling unit is at all available at present for delivering possession to the complainant.

7.       Irrespective of the afore, we see that it is an admitted fact that the completion certificate was not obtained by the assured period of handing over possession or even within a reasonable period thence (reasonable period here would connote a period which is reasonable per se and which a person of ordinary prudence would not normally agitate). Obviously enough, without the completion certificate it was not feasible to offer legitimate meaningful possession. Abnormal unreasonable delay in offering possession is writ large. Apart from this, defects in construction have been categorically shown and borne out by the evidence on record. In such facts and circumstances, we do not find any justification for interfering with the decision of the State Commission to refund the amount deposited by the complainant with reasonable interest. There is no good ground to ask the complainant to go in for possession when it was not offered within the assured period ending in October 2017, or even within a reasonable period thence, and also when it has been conclusively determined by the evidence that the construction had many defects and it is nowhere on record that the said defects have since been rectified.

8.       Learned counsel of the housing organisation then argues that the housing organization would be willing to refund the amount deposited by the complainant but the rate of interest of 11% per annum awarded by the State Commission is on the higher side. The submission is that rate of interest of 9% per annum or so would be just and equitable.

9.       The complainant in person submits that he has been put to continuous physical and mental harassment, trouble and difficulty, by the housing organization not satisfactorily completing the project and offering possession within the assured period and yet retaining his money in an indefinite manner and forcing him to suffer the labours of protracted litigation. In respect of the rate of interest he specifically submits that he had taken a housing loan from the State Bank of India and has been paying interest thereon. His submission is that having regard to the fact that he had taken a loan and has been servicing it, and also having regard to the continuous and continuing trouble and travails he has been put to, the rate of interest of 11% per annum is in all eventualities just and equitable and not at all on the higher side. An additional submission has also been made that the State Commission has made an award which in some respects is difficult to readily comprehend. He draws attention to the award as articulated in para 7 of the State Commission’s Order:

7. As a result of our above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and below noted directions are issued to OPs:

(i) OPs are directed to refund the entire deposited amounts of complainant with interest @11% per annum, as per his statement dated 29.03.2019 from the date of their respective deposits commencing from March 2014 not prior to that till actual payment thereof.

(ii) OPs are also directed to pay composite amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to complainant for mental harassment and cost of litigation keeping in view the fact that the project is based on no profit, no loss basis by OPs.

Compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

The complainant also submits that in the normal wont interest is awarded from the respective dates of deposit till the date(s) of actual realisation and the same should also be adopted in his case.

10.     Learned counsel for the housing organisation submits that “statement dated 29.03.2019” as written by the State Commission appears to be a clerical mistake on its part since there was no “statement dated 29.03.2019” on the record and only the statement of account as on 14-08-2017 was on the record before it. He also submits that while depositing the decretal amount with the State Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 14.05.2019 the housing organization had computed interest from the respective dates of deposit.

11.     It is admitted by both sides that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 64,45,188/- in all to the housing organization. There can be no two opinions that the same has to be necessarily refunded.

12.     In so far as interest on the deposited amount is concerned, it is just a way of computing compensation to be awarded under section 14 of the Act 1986. That is to say, it is a method for arriving at just and equitable compensation.

In the given case, considering the facts and circumstances, also specifically that the complainant had taken loan from the State Bank of India to fund his intended acquisition and has been servicing the same, as also considering the continuous and continuing trouble and travails the complainant has been put to, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the rate of interest of 11% per annum awarded by the State Commission.

We cannot help observing that an Order passed by a forum, and especially so the award made therein, has to be clear and lucid, unambiguous, readily comprehendible, and not pose difficulties in interpretation. In the present case however we find that the State Commission’s award is somewhat nebulously articulated. And, in our considered opinion, in the present case, the interest ought to be paid from the respective dates of deposit since the same is a fair way to arrive at just and equitable compensation commensurate with the loss and injury suffered by the complainant.

13.     As such we would like to re-articulate the award as below:

“The housing organization shall refund the amount of Rs. 64,45,188/- deposited by the complainant with interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date(s) of actual realisation along with Rs. 50,000/- as lumpsum compensation inclusive of cost of litigation.”

The amount if any deposited by the housing organization with the State Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 14.05.2019 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the State Commission to the complainant as per the due procedure. The balance awarded amount if any shall be made good by the housing organisation within six weeks from today, failing which the State Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.

14.     So disposed.

15.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the appeal as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.