PER SUBHASH CHANDRA 1. This appeal assails order dated 01.02.2021 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the State Commission’) in CC no. 490 of 2014 under section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) whereby the State Commission had allowed the consumer complaint partly and prays for directions to refund the excess amount collected by the respondent along with compensation for mental agony, harassment, litigation cost and interest @ 15% per annum on the excess amount as prayed for in CC no.490 of 2014. 2. This order will also dispose of FA no. 559 of 2021 filed by the respondent challenging the impugned order in CC no. 490 of 2014 seeking to set aside the impugned order and any other order (s) as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. As both the FAs emanate from the same order of the State Commission, they are being disposed of by way of a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the case are taken from FA no. 936 of 2021. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record carefully. 4. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay and keeping in view the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to extension of limitation in view of Covid 19 pandemic in Suo Moto Writ Petition no. 3 of 2020, the delay is condoned 5. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the complaint was allotted a villa on plot ad-measuring 150 sq yds with built up area of 964.45 sq ft bearing number F 12/12 in the project Village Parklands, Sector 88, Faridabad, Haryana of the respondent by way of transfer from the original allottee on 21.06.2008 for a basic sale price of Rs.23,62,500/- plus charges towards EDC, IDC, utility connection charges, interest free maintenance security and sinking fund etc. The appellant paid a booking amount of Rs.1,05,000/-. A villa buyer’s agreement was signed on 27.02.2008 as per which the possession was to be delivered in 36 months and, in case of delay, the respondent undertook to pay a penalty of Rs.3000/- per month for any delay beyond 36 months. It was further agreed that in case of reduction or increase in the built up area, Rs.1250/- per sq ft would either be respectively chargeable or refunded. The appellant approached the State Commission seeking various reliefs and by way of impugned order dated 01.02.2021 the State Commission awarded refund of the amount on account of reduction in the built up area of Rs.3.20 lakh, charges towards electrical sub-station of Rs.1.38 lakh, charges towards enhancement of internal development charges of Rs.1.39 lakhs, Rs.1.05 lakhs towards delay in handing over the possession @ Rs.3000/- per month beyond 36 months. The appellant is before this Commission claiming compensation, litigation cost and interest paid on payments made in the year 2011-2012 including on the bank loan. 6. It is the appellant’s case that the villa in question was delivered after 71 months on 27.06.2014 as against the committed period of 36 months despite collection of 95% of the payment within 30 months by 2011, the constructed area of the villa was reduced from 964 sq ft to 708 sq ft and the structure was converted from 1 ½ floors to a single floor building, apart from the increase in the cost from the agreed price of Rs.26 lakh to Rs.32 lakh. He has accordingly sought to be compensated as prayed. 7. The impugned order which was passed on contest, has considered the contentions of both the parties in detail, including the argument placed before us in this appeal by the appellant that (i) appellant was a ‘consumer’ under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act 1986 and was entitled to purchase the unit for his own purpose; (ii) the delay in handing over the possession was an admitted fact since the villa was handed over in June 2014 after execution of the Sale Deed in March 2014; (iii) the contention of the respondent that the appellant was a defaulter in payment was not material since the payment had been received by the respondent after charging penal interest whereby the delay was regularized; (iv) the claim of force majeure conditions was not justifiable as claimed by the respondent since the allotted unit of F 12/12, Sector 88 had been shifted to G 5/19, Sector 89 due to land disputes with the farmers; (v) the respondent had suo motu changed the plan of the villa to a single storied house with a reduced area contrary to the floor plan agreed upon in the Agreement as approved by the concerned Authority; (vi) the contention of the respondent that the appellant has accepted the possession was incorrect since it was his case that possession was ‘deemed’ to have been handed over at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed. The appellant averred that the State Commission’s order/ judgment was in order since it had ordered refund due to the reduction in the area and charges levied for STP and electrification charges. However, since this amount stands paid, the appellant claimed reciprocal interest @ 15% on the same as also on payment of EEDC levied. It was contended that the respondent cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongs and that the State Commission had correctly relied upon the judgment in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr. (1986) 3 SCC 156 and Wg Cdr Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors., vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., (2020) SCC Online SC 667. 8. On its part, the respondent has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the State Commission’s order was flawed and erroneous on the grounds that the State Commission failed to consider the loss suffered due to payment of interest on loans availed, rent due to delay, cost of litigation, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. It was contended that the demand of GST due to delay after paying the service tax had not been agitated before the State Commission. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal of the appellant in FA no.936 of 2021 be set aside and his appeal in FA no.559 of 2021 be allowed. 9. The findings of the State Commission on the issue raised by the appellant are detailed and considered. A perusal of the order indicates that it has, inter alia, recorded that the findings are based on material on record and the arguments placed before it. It has considered the eligibility of the appellant to file the complaint under the Act, the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the delay in the making of the payment, the issue of constructed area and cost incurred, installation of the STP and 220 kw electrical sub-station and charging of interest by the respondent on EDC and bank guarantee charges. 10. The contention of the appellant is to be compensated by way of interest on the amount deposited with the respondent since it has contended that these funds remained with the respondent even though he was not entitled for the same. The State Commission’s order has clearly recorded that in view of the compensation being paid as per the agreement between the parties this additional amount is not being considered to be justified. 11. From the foregoing, it is apparent that the State Commission has passed a considered order. In the case of DLF Home Panchkula Pvt Ltd Vs DS Dhanda & Ors., MANU/SC/0744/2019 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that compensation for multiple head for a singular default is not justified. The impugned order cannot be faulted on this account. 12. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, Civil Appeal No. 6044 of 2019 decided on 07.04.2022 that compensation should be just and equitable. The conclusion of the State Commission on this account is also belated and warrants no interference. 13. In view of the foregoing we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the State Commission which is a well-reasoned and well considered order. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is liable to fail and is accordingly, disallowed. Appeal no. 559 of 2021 is also disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed of by this order. | 
