1.     In this Appeal, filed by DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Developer) against the order dated 28.5.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), the Respondents/Complainants have sought possession of the flats/apartments booked by them. 

2.     We have heard Learned Counsel for the Parties. 

3.     We find that the controversy regarding handing over delayed possession and claim of refund, along with interest, has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, Etc. Etc. and DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sudesh Goyal, Etc., II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC).  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the following directions: 

HANDING OVER DELAYED POSSESSION

“19.      Thus, we find that the complainant is entitled to interest from the Appellant for not handing over possession as projected as is offered by it but it is not a case to award special punitive damages as the one of the causes for late delivery of possession was beyond the control of the Appellant.  Therefore, in view of the settlement proposal submitted by the Appellant in earlier two set of appeals in respect of same project, and to settle any further controversy, the Appellant is directed as follows:

i) To send a copy of the occupation certificate to the Complainants along with offer of possession.  The Appellant shall also direct the Jones Lang LaSalle – the real estate maintenance agency, engaged by the Appellant to undertake such maintenance works as is necessary on account of damage due to non-occupation of the flats after construction etc.

ii)         It shall be open to the Complainants to seek the assistance of the maintenance agency to attend to the maintenance work which may arise on account of non-occupation or on account of natural vagaries.

iii)        Such maintenance work shall be completed by the Appellant within two months of the offer of possession but the payment of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum will be for a period of two months from the date of offer of possession in all situations.

v)         Since the Complainants have been forced to invoke jurisdiction of the consumer forums, they shall be entitled to consolidated amount of Rs.50,000/- in each complaint on all accounts such as mental agony and litigation expenses etc.  The complainant shall not be entitled to any other amount over and above the amount mentioned above.

vi)        In case, the original allottee has transferred the flat, the transferee shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of expiry of three years from the agreement or from the date of transfer, whichever is later.”

REFUND OF AMOUNT

“21.      The Complainant in these cases have sought refund of the amount deposited by them with the Appellant.  The learned SCDRC passed an order on 04.08.2017 directing the Appellant as under:-

“i.         To refund the amounts of Rs.49,25,461/- along with simple interest @ 15% per annum, to the complainant, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amounts alongwith simple interest @ 18% per annum, instead of 15% per annum, from the date of default till actual payments;

ii)         To pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amount alongwith simple interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment.”

23.       We find that the grant of interest at the rate of 15% by SCDRC is highly excessive.  Since in other two set of appeals decided earlier, this Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of refund, therefore, the order of SCDRC stand modified so as to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.”

4.     Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Complainants have claimed that they be compensated by way of grant of interest as the Developer herein had physically not delivered the possession of the flats/apartments and was holding over. 

5.     As the controversy has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are not inclined to grant any further compensation.

6.     The payment be made to the Respondents/Complainants within 10 weeks from today.  Mr. Praveen Bahadur, Learned Counsel for the Developer herein, states that some amount has already been deposited before the State Commission.  He submitted that the Developer will give a statement of the amount payable in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and file an Affidavit before the State Commission, whereafter the State Commission may release the said amount directly in favour of the Respondents/Complainants and the balance amount shall be paid by the Developer within the aforesaid period.

7.     The Respondents/Complainants shall also be entitled for a consolidated amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and litigation expenses.

8.     In addition to above, the statutory deposit, made by the Developer herein at the time of filing the Appeal, along with accrued interest, if any, be given to the Respondents/Complainants.

9.     The Appeal stands disposed of in terms referred to in Para-3 above.

10.   Mr.Siddharth Jain, learned Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants states that he will not press the Execution Application.