This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, a Real Estate Developer, is directed

-2-

against the order dated 01.05.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint Case No.898 of 2016.  By the impugned order, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant on account of delay in delivery of possession of a plot of land, admeasuring 301.38 sq. yards, in the project launched by the Appellant, christened as “Omaxe Chandigarh Extension” Mullanpur, Punjab, purchased by the Complainant in resale, the State Commission has directed the Appellant to pay to the Complainant an amount of ₹9,42,047.64ps. as compensation for the period of delay, calculated @ 12% p.a. from 19.07.2014 to 20.01.2016; a sum of ₹1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the Complainant and a sum of ₹50,000/- towards cost of litigation.  The State Commission has also directed that if the payment of the afore-said amounts is not made to the Complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the said amounts shall carry penal interest @ 15% p.a. (simple) for the period from 19.07.2014 to 20.01.2016, instead of 12% p.a. as calculated above and further interest @ 12% p.a. (simple) on the amounts awarded as compensation for the mental agony and costs from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization.

-3-

        When the Appeal came up for motion hearing, notice to the Respondent/Complainant was confined to the question of rate of interest and the lump sum compensation awarded in addition to the interest.  At the same time, the Appellant was directed to remit to the Complainant interest @ 10% p.a. from 19.07.2014 to 20.01.2016, instead of 12% p.a., as directed vide the impugned order.

        As per the office report, the Respondent/Complainant has been duly served with the notice in the Appeal.  However, despite the second call, the Respondent remains unrepresented.

        Accordingly, I have heard Mr. Mund, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant on merits of the Appeal.

        Regard being had to the fact that the possession of the plot in question has already been delivered, though belatedly, and the Complainant has chosen not to contest this Appeal as also the fact that the amount, as directed to be remitted to the Complainant in terms of the order dated 12.07.2017, is stated to have been already paid to the Complainant, after adjustment, as permitted by the State Commission, in my opinion, the rate of interest as also the compensation awarded by the State Commission is on the higher side.

Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed with a direction that the Appellant shall be liable to pay to the Complainant interest @10%p.a. from 19.07.2014 to 20.01.2016, instead of 12% p.a. as

-4-

directed in para 22 (i) of the order impugned in this Appeal along with a lump sum compensation of ₹25,000/-, instead of ₹1 Lac, as directed by the State Commission.

        The balance amount due in terms of this order, if any, shall be remitted by the Appellant to the Complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of actual payment.

        The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant.

        The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.