1. Heard counsel for the appellants and respondent in person.The Office has submitted a report that there is delay of 209 days in filing the appeal, Inasmuch as, the impugned order was passed on 15.05.2023 and free certified copy was issued to the appellants on 27.07.2023, while this appeal has been filed on 11.03.2024. The appellants have filed IA/8182/2024 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In this IA, the appellants have stated that after receiving the certified copy, the appellants engaged an advocate in New Delhi for preparation of the appeal. The appeal was drafted on 12.09.2023. However, in the meantime, the appellant no.3, who was doing pairavi, got fracture in his right leg and due to plaster, he could not move, therefore, only after his recovery he came to Delhi, signed the papers and filed this appeal. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 15.05.2023 passed in CC/17/883, whereby following orders have been passed.

1. “Complaint is hereby partly allowed.
2. Opponent Nos.1 to 4 are held liable for playing unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
3. Opponent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to refund amount of Rs.10,34,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of respective payment till its realisation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In default, the said amount shall carry interest @18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till its realisation.
4. Opponent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical harassment to the complainant within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opponent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay amount of Rs.75000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainants within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties.”

3. The fact of the case that the complainants booked the flat on 17.02.2013, in the project of the appellants, out of total consideration of Rs.60,38,000/-, they deposited Rs.10,34,000/- till 16.03.2013, and the appellants could not proceed with the project even till today. Therefore, the order of refund as passed by the state commission does not suffer from any illegality.
4. The only issue raised by the counsel for the appellants that the state commission has awarded interest @ 12% p.a. and simultaneously, also awarded a compensation of Rs.3 lacs for mental and physical harassment and costs of Rs.75000/- to the complainants. He submits that the appellants have tendered the amount to the complainants in October 2016, but, the complainants have returned the cheques. Instead of accepting the cheques, they lodged an FIR on 15.11.2016 against the appellants and as a condition of grant of bail as directed by the Bombay High Court in the order dated 24.04.2017, the appellants deposited the bank draft of Rs.10,34,000/- therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay interest subsequent to that date.
5.  We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the appellants. So far as tender of cheques is concerned, the cheques were post-dated cheques and it cannot be termed as the appellants have tendered the money to the complainants, therefore, this tender does not absolve the appellants from liability to pay interest. So far as, the deposits in compliance of the order dated 24.04.2017 is concerned, it is deposit as a condition of grant of bail and it cannot be considered as tender of money to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants are not absolved from the liability of interest in case of the refund.
6. However, the state commission has directed for refund of money with interest @ 12% p.a. Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 416, held that in case of refund @ 9% interest is just compensation which amounts to restitutory and compensatory  both. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, we are scaling down the interest from 12% to 9% p.a. So far as the other direction for payment of compensation of Rs.3 lacs towards mental and physical harassment is concerned, since the appellants have been found guilty of committing unfair trade practice and for getting the refund the respondents have to run from pillar to post we do not find any reason to interfere with this direction.
7.  

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of state commission is modified to the extent that the appellants shall refund the amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the respective deposits till the date of refund. Rest of the directions are confirmed. The order will be complied with within two months from today. In case of default, the appellants shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum.