ORDER (ORAL) The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.05.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal -2- Commission, Punjab Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.94 of 2018. 2. The brief admitted facts of the case are that the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainants”) had booked a residential unit in the project of the Appellant called “Omaxe Cassia” at New Chandigarh, Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar. The Allotment Letter/Agreement dated 25.10.2012 was executed and unit No.OCIF/Second/799, Second Floor, measuring 2200 sq.ft. was allotted to the Complainant. The consideration price of the said flat was ₹61,46,010/-. The Complainants opted for construction linked plan and on various dates continued to make the payment and paid a total sum of ₹51,78,044.77ps. As per clause 23(b) of the Agreement, possession was to be delivered within 30 months inclusive of 6 months grace period. The possession ought to have been delivered by 25.04.2015 including the grace period. The contention of the Complainants was that the Appellant had failed to complete the construction and therefore, the Complainants had been left with no option but to file the Complaint before the State Commission claiming refund of the deposited amount along with compensation. -3- 3. In the written version filed by the Appellant, they had taken several objections. On merit, however, it was contended that the Complainants were not entitled for the refund since her money had been invested in the development of their unit. The Appellant prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. 4. Parties led their evidences before the State Commission. After hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant record, the State Commission reached to the conclusion that since the project was considerably delayed and despite huge payment over the last six years, the possession had not been offered, the Appellant was guilty of deficiency in service in adopting unfair trade practice on their part. 5. I have perused the file. It is an admitted fact that as per the BBA, the possession was to be handed over within 30 months inclusive of grace period of 6 months i.e. by 25.04.2015 but till the date of filing of the Complaint in the year 2018, there was no offer of possession by the Appellant and therefore, there was a considerable delay and as per the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Fortune Infrastructure vs. Trevor Dlima (2018) 5 SCC 552”, an allottee cannot be made to wait indefinitely -4- for the possession. I find no illegality in the finding of the State Commission on the deficiency in service on part of the Appellant. 6. It is argued on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that grant of interest @ 12% p.a. under Rule 17 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995 (in short “PAPRA”) is misconceived and the said provision is not applicable on the fact and circumstances of the case. It is argued that the said rule is applicable only where the agreement has been cancelled by the promoter. In the present case, it is argued that the agreement has not been cancelled and therefore, the provision is not applicable. 7. I have perused the file and the relevant rules. Rule 17 of PAPRA reads as under: “17. Rate of interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement. [Sections 6 (2) and 45 (2) (j)] The promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub-section (1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment.” 8. From reading of this section, it is apparent that this Section has to be read in conjunction with Sections 6 (2) and 45 (2) (j) of PAPRA. Rule 6 (2) reads as under: -5- “6. Contents of agreement of sale : (2) The promoter shall not cancel unilaterally the agreement of sale entered into under sub-section (1) and if he has sufficient cause to cancel it, he shall give due notice to the other parties to the agreement and tender a refund of the full amount collected together with interest at the rate as may be prescribed.” 9. Conjoint reading of these two rules clearly show that the promoter is liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. under Rule 17 when the promoter unilaterally cancels the agreement of sale and violates rule 6 ( 2) of the Act. It is, therefore, for me to determine the reasonable compensation to which the Complainant is entitled. 10. It is argued on behalf of the Appellant that the grant of interest @ 12% p.a. is towards higher side. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several pronouncements has granted interest much lesser. It is also argued that in the case of “DLF Homes Panchkula Limited vs. D. S. Dhanda etc. (2020) 16 SCC 318” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that if the compensation in the form of interest has been awarded then there is no need to grant compensation under different heads. It is argued on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant that the impugned order does not suffer with any illegality on this count as well. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments of parties. While in D. S. Dhanda’s case (supra) the Hon’ble -6- Supreme Court has clearly said that compensation under different heads ought not to be granted where interest is awarded, in “Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 SCC Online SC 416”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “33. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9 per cent granted by the Commission is fair and just and we find no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by the consumer for enhancement of interest.” 11. In view of the above, grant of interest @ 9% p.a. shall be proper and justiciable in the facts and circumstances of the case. while partly allowing the present Appeal, I issue following directions: (i) The Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of ₹51,78,044.77ps. to the Complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization; (ii) The Opposite Party is directed to pay litigation costs of ₹50,000/- to the Complainant.” 12. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Complainant that pursuant to direction of this Commission dated 15.02.2019, the entire decretal amount is lying deposited with this Commission and requests that the decretal amount payable pursuant to this order be ordered to be released to the Respondent/Complainant towards -7- satisfaction of this order and the balance, if any, be ordered to be released to the Appellant. 13. Registry of this Commission is directed to release the due amount to the Complainant in terms of this order on her application and the balance, if any, be released to the Appellant. 14. With these directions, the present Appeal stands disposed of. | 
