JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER

The present First Appeal  has been filed by the appellant / opposite party against the order of UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short, the State Commission) dated 16.03.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 665 of 2017.   Vide this order, the State Commission found the appellant deficient in service and allowed the complaint.

2.         The brief facts of the case are that appellant is the developer of the project ‘DLF Valley’ and the respondents had booked a flat therein.  Despite the time schedule to hand over the possession of the flat, the appellant failed to hand over the subject flat to the respondents.  The respondents had deposited Rs.78,41,252/- with the appellant.  In the written version, the appellant had taken several pleas for the delay in completing the project called ‘DLF Valley' situated in Sector-3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex.  In an earlier complaint filed by Himanshu Arora before the State Commission, the complaint was decided in favour of the complainant Himanshu Arora.  In the said complaint, in written version, similar pleas had been taken by the appellant which  had been raised herein and those pleas were rejected. The State Commission directed the appellant to pay compensation.  Relevant portion of the direction is extracted below:

“(iii) To pay compensation, by way of Signature Not Verified interest @ 12% p.a., on the deposited amount, Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND to the complainant(s), from 07.01.2014 in Date: 2018.11.29 15:40:36 IST respect of Complaint No.508/2016 and from the Reason: respective dates as given in Column No.5 in Table – A in respect of eight complaints 1 indicated therein, till 30.11.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount(s) shall carry penal interest @ 15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.

(iv) To pay compensation by way of interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amounts, to the complainant(s) w.e.f. 01.12.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @ 15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.

(v) Pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount(s) shall carry interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.”

  3.       In an appeal, this Commission reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 9%..  The appellant had taken the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11097 of 2018 of 2018 with Civil Appeal No. 11098-11138 of 2018.  It was decided on 19.11.2018, whereby all the pleas of the appellant were rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the findings to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in completing the project called ‘DLF Valley’.

4.         From the above, it is clear that reasons given by the appellant in delay in completing the project ‘DLF Valley” and their inability to hand over the possession of the subject flat to the buyers had been rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had confirmed the findings of the State Commission and National Commission to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in completing the subject project.

5.         I find no illegality in the impugned order.  In view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Himanshu Arora’s case (supra), while upholding the order of the State Commission, it is directed that interest payable by the appellant shall be simple interest @ 9% p.a.. Rest of the direction of the State Commission shall remain the same.  Appeal stands disposed of in these terms.