Subject to all just exceptions, delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Complainant/appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission. Respondent applied for allotment of Apartment No.L-022 measuring 1990 sq. ft. in the building by the name of “Raheja Navodaya”, Gurgaon constructed by the appellant. Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 21.05.2008. On 14.03.2009, appellant informed the complainant/respondent about relocation of the said apartment. Appellant failed to give any information of the new location. On 16.04.2009 appellant sent another letter to the respondent and informed that the apartment allotted to him was changed to new apartment bearing No.B-022. Offer of relocation was not accepted by the respondent. Respondent requested the appellant not to relocate the apartment. In spite of this appellant sent another letter dated 24.04.2009 to the respondent confirming
-3- relocation of the apartment. Respondent vide letter dated 09.05.2009 submitted that relation of the apartment was not acceptable. Appellant vide letter dated 12.05.2009 took the pretext of “timely delivery” of the apartment as the reason for re-location and mentioned clause 3.9 of the Flat Buyer Agreement which authorizes the authority to make certain changes in the position of the apartment or the flat plans (not relocation). According to the respondent, as per Clause 8.15 of Flat Buyer Agreement the terms and conditions of the agreement could not be changed without written amendment duly signed by both the parties; that he was shocked to know that the appellant had abandoned original plans of construction of two blocks. After sending a legal notice, respondent filed the complaint before the State Commission. Facts are not disputed between the parties. State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to refund the entire amount of Rs.21,07,375/- deposited by the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization. State Commission in its order has observed as under: -4- “It is not disputed that complainant booked a flat No.L-022 measuring 1990 sq. ft. at “Raheja’s Navodaya, Gurgaon with the OP. It has been denied that complainant booked a flat in particular tower and also paid the requisite amount at the time of booking and even at later stage as and when amounts were demanded from the complainant. Complainant has paid a total of Rs.21,07,375/-. Ops have been insisting that since it is within their discretion to change the tower, therefore, they changed the tower. The OPPOSITE PARTY was in dominating position and tried to thrust upon their discretion in changing the tower, which was on the main road and easily approachable to a tower which was away from main road. This itself was unfair trade practice and thus the complainant was justified in seeking refund of the amount with interest. No justifiable reason would be given by the OP in changing the tower except stating that it was within their discretion to change the tower. Complainant did not consent for change of tower and rightly so as the complainant was being shifted from the flat in a approachable tower to the tower, which was at a considerable distance. Thus there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Therefore, keeping in view, the overall circumstances, the Ops are directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.21,07,375/- deposited by the complainant along with -5- interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. With these observations, the present complaint is allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Since the appellant is not in a position to deliver the possession of flat originally agreed to be purchased by the respondent, appellant is obliged to refund the amount deposited by the respondent. Since the respondent has been deprived of the use of his money from the date of deposit the respondent is entitled to get interest on that amount. State Commission has rightly directed the appellant to pay interest from the date of deposit till the date of realization. However, we feel that the interest granted @ 18% p.a. is on the higher side. Counsel for the respondent after taking instructions from the respondent who is present in person agrees to receive interest @ 12% p.a. Appeal is dismissed with the modification that the rate of interest would be 12% p.a. instead of 18% p.a. PROVIDED the amount is refunded to the respondent along with interest within six weeks from today, -6- failing which the appellant shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. awarded by the State Commission. Rest of the order is upheld. | 
