Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant states that in compliance of the last order of this Commission, the appellant had already paid Rs.45,85,584/- to the complainant which is confirmed by the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant as well as by the complainant who is also present in person.

2.     Now the only question remains about the compensation in the form of interest. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the State Commission has granted interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of refund which is totally unjustified. He states that due to decline in the interest rates, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission are now ordering refund along with 8-9 % per annum interest. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment of this Commission in the case of Bhrigu Kaushik and 14 Ors., vs M/s Ansal Hi Tech Township Ltd., wherein this Commission has ordered refund along with 8% per annum interest. In the case of Ankur Goyal vs M/s Rise Project Pvt., Ltd., this Commission vide its order dated 14.10.2020 has ordered 8% per annum interest.

3.     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the complainant had paid all the instalments in time as per the demand of the opposite party. However, the possession was not given in time and therefore, the State Commission has ordered refund of the paid amount along with 18% per annum interest. The State Commission has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K A Nagmani vs Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, III (2016) CPJ 16 (SC) and has ordered 18% per annum interest and therefore, reasonable rate of interest should be awarded to the complainant keeping in view, the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

4.     We have carefully considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have examined the material on record. As the principal amount has already been paid on 03.11.2020, the only issue to be decided is in respect of compensation to be granted to the complainant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs D S Dhanda, ETC; Sudesh Goyal, ETC, 2019 Law Suit (SC) 1207 has ordered refund of the paid amount by the complainant along with 9% interest per annum. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata West International Pvt., Ltd. vs Deva Asis Rudra, II (2019) CPJ 29 (SC) has reduced the rate of interest from 12% per annum as granted by this Commission on refund to 9% per annum. Considering all the aspects, we are convinced that the refund in the present matter should be given by the opposite party along with 9% per annum interest. Clearly, 18% per annum interest granted by the State Commission is on a higher side and cannot be allowed to sustain. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly accepted and the appellant/ opposite party is directed to refund the principal amount along with 9% per annum interest from the respective dates of deposit till the actual payment. As the principal amount has already been paid on 03.11.2020, the interest is required to be paid @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till 03.11.2020. The interest amount shall be paid within a period of 90 days from today, failing which the applicable interest rate shall become 10% per annum instead of 9% per annum.