1.      The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi (“the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No.387 of 2018 wherein the State Commission allowed the complaint and refund the amount of Rs.30,10,459/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the dates of different payments till the date of refund within 45 days from receipt of copy of the order.

2.      As per office report, there is a delay of 35 days in filing of the present First Appeal.  As the delay occurred during the suspended period of limitation, the same is condoned.

3.      For Convenience, parties are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. Ashok Kumar Gupta is referred to as ‘the Complainant’ (Appellant herein) and Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. is referred to as ‘Opposite Party’ (Respondent herein).

4.      Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that the Opposite Party allotted a Flat No.120602, 6^th Floor in Tower-12 of Ansal Sushant City, Sonipat vide allotment letter dated 24.07.2006 for a total consideration of Rs.24.34 Lakh to the Complainant.  The possession was to be handed over within 30 months from the date of sanction of building plans by the authorities subject to force majeure circumstances and on receipt of all payments punctually as per agreed terms.  Due to increase the area from 1410 sq. ft. to 1679 sq. ft., the price of the flat in question was increased.  Therefore, the Complainant paid a total of Rs.35,18,940/- (3010459+456175+52306 = Rs.3518940). The Building plans were approved vide Director General, Town & Country Planning Haryana, Chandigarh office Memo No.3536 dated 31.01.2007. The offer of possession was made on 16.11.2011.  The Complainant has taken possession of the flat in question on 26.10.2012. Thus, there is a delay in offering possession from 31.07.2009 (after 30 months from the date of sanction of building plan dated 31.01.2007 as per agreement executed between the parties) to 15.11.2011.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission seeking compensation for delay in handing over the possession.

5.      In reply, the Opposite Party raised preliminary objections that Complainant concealed material fact and deliberately not made timely payment on account of his own financial crises. Various call notices issued to the Complainant. However, he neither made payments nor responded to said communications. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint be dismissed.

6.      The learned State Commission, vide order dated 18.12.2020, allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to refund the deposit amount of Rs.30,10,459/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the dates of different payments till the date of refund within 45 days from receipt of copy the order.

7.      Being aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Complainant filed the present Appeal No.319 of 2021 seeking compensation for delay in handing over the possession and sought to set aside the order of the learned State Commission.

8.      The Appellant/Complainant, who has appeared in person, stated that he was allotted a Flat No.120602, 6^th Floor in Tower-12 of Ansal Sushant City, Sonipat vide allotment letter dated 24.07.2006 for a total consideration of Rs.24.34 Lakh. The possession was to be handed over within 30 months. Due to increase the area from 1410 sq. ft. to 1679 sq. ft., the price of the flat was increased.  Therefore, he paid Rs.35,18,940/- (3010459+456175+52306=Rs.3518940). The Building plans were approved vide Director General, Town & Country Planning Haryana, Chandigarh Office Memo No.3536 dated 31.01.2007. The offer of possession was made on 16.11.2011. The complainant had taken possession of the flat in question on 26.10.2012.  Thus, there is a delay in offering the possession is from 31.07.2009 to 15.11.2011. He sought to compensation for the delay in offering possession and setting aside of the impugned order passed by the State Commission.

9.      Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party submitted that complainant was concealed material fact and deliberately not made timely payment on account of his own financial crises. Various call notices issued to the Complainant. But, he neither made the payment nor responded to said communications. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  He sought to dismiss the First Appeal.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the Appellant/Complainant in person and learned Counsel for Respondent/Opposite Party.

11.    It is admitted position that the Complainant had taken over the possession of the flat in question on 26.10.2012. The central issue now for determination is whether the complainant is further entitled for compensation, if any, on account of delay in offering possession or not.

12.    In the present case, the Complainant was allotted Flat No. 120602, 6^th Floor in Tower-12 of Ansal Sushant City, Sonipat vide allotment letter dated 24.07.2006.  An agreement between the Parties was executed on 23.01.2007.  As per agreement, the possession of the flat was to be offered within 30 months from the date of sanction of the building plan. The Building plans were approved vide Director General, Town & Country Planning Haryana, Chandigarh Office Memo No.3536 dated 31.01.2007. While the period of 30 months lapsed on 30.07.2009, the offer of possession was made only on 16.11.2011. Thus, there is a delay in offering of possession of the flat in question from the date i.e. 31.07.2009 to 15.11.2011. 

13.    While there are several landmark judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding Builders responsible for delay compensation in case of delay in handing over the possession, the issue to be also decided in this case is what would be the reasonable quantum of interest that should be paid.  In this regard, I would like to quote the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Home Developers Ltd. vs. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Assn., (2021) 5 SCC 537, wherein it was held as:

 "It is true that in the present case, the contractual rate of Rs.10 per square foot per month is double the rate fixed in the agreements Page 10 of 13 of FA No.225 of 2020 in the above case. On the other hand, the court must be conscious of the fact that the situation in the real estate market in Delhi is very distinct from that in Bengaluru both in terms of rentals and land values. This has not been disputed. The flat buyers had to suffer on account of a substantial delay on the part of the appellants. In such a situation, they cannot be constrained to the compensation of Rs.10 per square foot provided by the agreements for flat purchase. However, having regard to all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the compensation on account of delay should be brought down from 7% to 6%. Moreover, the amount, if any, which has been paid in terms of the contractual rate shall be adjusted while computing the balance"

14.    In view of the foregoing deliberations, the order of the learned State Commission in CC No. 387 of 2018 dated 18.12.2020 is modified as under:

ORDER

1. The Respondent/OP is directed to pay delay compensation to the Appellant/Complainant in the form of simple interest @ 6% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainant as consideration towards the said flat i.e. Rs.35,18,940/- (3010459+456175+52306=Rs.3518940) for the period of delay in offering possession from 31.07.2009 to 15.11.2011, within a period of one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay beyond one month, the interest applicable shall be @ 9% per annum for such extended period till the realization of the entire amount.

15.    Consequently, the instant First Appeal No.319 of 2021 stands disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

16.    All the pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 

17.    The statutory the amount deposited by the Appellant, if any due, shall be refunded after compliance of this order.