AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.), MEMBER 1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No.181 of 2018 with the following prayers: (a) allow the present Appeal; and (b) set aside the final judgment and Order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 181 of 2018 limited to the extent of awarding of quantum interest and compensation; and (c) pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was allotted Plot No. OCE/II/166 by the Appellants vide Allotment Letter dated 01.03.2012 measuring 301.39 Sq Yds in the project named ‘Omaxe Chandigarh Extension’, New Chandigarh. Despite paying Rs.50,75,972.78/- against Rs.48,65,350.40, which is the total consideration, the OP failed to deliver possession by 30.03.2014 i.e. within 24 months (18+6 months grace period), as envisaged under Clause 24(a) of the Agreement dated 31.03.2012. 3. Visits to the project site revealed that the Opposite Party will not be able to deliver possession of the plot in question, even in the next two to three years, for want of development works. Number of requests were made by the Complainant to the OP to complete development work at the project site and deliver the possession of the plot in dispute. However, no positive steps were taken. Under these circumstances, the Complainant forwarded a legal notice dated 23.01.2017 to refund the amount paid along with interest. It invoked no response. As the said acts of the OP amounted to deficiency in providing service and unfair trade practices, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking the following reliefs: “the complaint may kindly be accepted and the opposite party may kindly be ordered to refund the amount of Rs.50,75,982.78/- along with interest @ 18% per annum along with an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages on account of harassment, humiliation etc. and an amount of Rs.33,000/- to the cost of legal fee and an amount of Rs.11000/- as legal fee on account of legal notice and Rs.50,000/- for more future litigation for execution etc., in the interest of justice.” 4. In the reply filed by the OP, many preliminary objections were raised. It was averred that the Complainant did not fall within the definition of "Consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as the purchase of the unit was for investment. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further, the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission was challenged. 5. The OP further contended that the development works in the area where the plot in question is located were completed. The Complainant was offered possession of the plot in question vide letter dated 13.12.2016. While the possession was not been taken, unnecessary demands were raised vide letter dated 23.01.2017. The Complainant defaulted in payments towards consideration of the said plot despite reminders. The claim as regards obtaining loan from State Bank of Patiala for making payment towards the said plot was within the prerogative of the Complainant. The OP has no connection and cannot be held liable, if the said bank has levied penal interest. It was pleaded that, if the complainant still wants a refund of the amount paid, the forfeiture clause would be applicable. The Complaint is also liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, as having admitted obtaining financial assistance from State Bank of Patiala, the Complainant failed to make the Bank party in the instant complaint seeking refund. The remaining averments were denied being false and baseless. The Appellant prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed in the case with costs. 6. The learned State Commission vide Order dated 05.03.2019, partly allowed the Complaint with costs and directed the Appellant/ Opposite Party as under:- (i) To refund the amount Rs.50,75,972.78/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposit onwards. (ii) To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, and also deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice. (iii) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.44,000/- to the complainant. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr. nos. (i) to (iii) shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr. no.(i) thereafter shall carry penal interest @ 15% p.a., from the date of default, and interest @ 12% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr. nos. (ii) and (iii), from the date of filing this complaint, till realization. 7. The learned Counsels for both the parties submitted that they wish to rely on the pleadings already submitted in the matter. The facts of the case entail limited questions of law in the form of the rate of interest payable and scope for payment of compensation, when interest is already granted. 8. The learned counsel for the Appellant in his arguments reiterated the contentions made in the Appeal. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “DLF Homes Panchkula Limited vs. D. S. Dhanda etc. (2020) 16 SCC 318”. He submitted that since interest has been awarded on the amount due, the direction regarding grant of compensation may be quashed. He further submitted that the development of the plot was complete and Completion Certificate has been obtained, he was limiting his case only to the extent of compensation awarded by the State Commission. 9. The learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the issued raised in the Complainant’s pleadings in the matter and argued in support of the impugned order passed by the State Commission. He asserted that the said Order is fair and reasonable and be upheld. 10. We have examined the pleadings placed on record and the associated documents and thoughtfully considered the detailed arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties. 11. As regards the rate of interest applicable and the scope for payment of compensation in such matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, in Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019 decided on 7.4.2022 has held that:- “We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the Order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit. We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interest shall be payable from the dates of such deposits. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just.” 12. In view of the facts of the case, the submissions made by the learned Counsels for both the parties and the established precedents by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter, the impugned Order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned State Commission, UT Chandigarh is modified with the following directions: - ORDER - The Appellants shall refund Rs.50,75,972.78/- to the Complainant/Respondent, along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment, within a period of one month from the date of this order. In the event of default, the amount payable shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of expiry of one month till the realization of the entire amount.
- The Appellant shall pay cost of litigation quantified as Rs.44,000/- to the Complainant/ Respondent, within one month from the date of this order.
13. Consequently, the instant First Appeal No. FA/730/2019 stands disposed of. All the pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. The statutory amount deposited by the Appellant, if any, be refunded after due compliance of the order. | 
