Delay condoned.

Complainant/respondent Ms. Mamta Singh an NRI, who is presently residing in London, applied for allotment of a flat in Avas Yojna advertised by the appellant/opposite party.  She submitted an application on 30.01.1992 for allotment along with the DD for an amount of Rs.99,820/- and also requested that she may be allotted residence at third or fourth floor because she was suffering from vertigo.  Appellant issued a reservation letter dated 02.04.1992 along with payment schedule.  On 11.05.1992 the complainant again paid amount of Rs.99,800/-.  Likewise the complainant made payment on 03.09.1992, 12.03.1993, 07.09.1993 and 10.04.1994 by way of Draft.  The entire amount was paid by the complainant in foreign currency.  On 01.02.1994, the appellant asked for the payment of Rs.17,536/- towards lease rent, Rs.3600/- towards service

-3-

charges and asked for the amount of Rs.13,000/- towards enhanced cost of the flat because of the cost of the flat had been enhanced from Rs.9,98,000/- to Rs.10,11,000/-.  In that letter, she was asked to make the payment till 28.02.1994 and take the possession up to 15.03.1994.  From that letter, the complainant came to know that she had been allotted flat No. 1005 Satpura Apartment on 10^th floor whereas she had requested for allotment of flat on lower floor.  Vide her letter dated 21.02.1994, the complainant again requested the appellant for allotment of the flat at the lower floors and thereafter she sent various reminders.  On 28.08.1995 the appellant informed that after second installment, it has not received further installments and the installments may be paid.  The Complainant sent all the receipts of the payment of the total installments to the appellant.  Finally, vide its letter dated 29.11.95, the appellant again made a demand of Rs.41,753/- which included interest of Rs.4290/-. On 21.12.1995, the complainant again sent draft of Rs.41,753/-.  During this period, the appellant also informed that her case is being considered for allotment of flat No.205 at second floor in Kamadgiri Tower but it may take 3/4 months. The complainant sent her confirmation for flat No.205.  When the

-4-

Complainant came to India to take possession of the above noted flat, she found that the above noted building is still under construction and she returned England without taking possession.  Thereafter, she again came back in November 1997 but by that also the building was not ready.  In February 1998, the Complainant again inspected the flat at Kamadgiri but the flat was not ready by that time also.  With regard to the possession of the disputed flat, the complainant’s father and brother inspected site many times.  Subsequently, vide letter dated 01.04.1999 she was informed that the disputed flat No.205 (2^nd Floor) Kamadgiri had been cancelled and flat No.1105 (11^th Floor) at Kamadgiri had been allotted to her. Complainant alleged that due to this, she suffered severe setback because she was suffering from vertigo.  She sent various letters with regard to the unfair trade practice adopted by the appellant but without any effect on the appellant.         According to the complainant/respondent, the entire payment with regard to the disputed flat had been made by her in the year 1994  whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2004. During that period also, the appellant failed to make the concerned flat habitable. 

          All these facts are not disputed. 

-5-

          During the pendency of the complaint before the State Commission, the appellant in compliance of the order dated 25.03.2011 handed over possession of the flat to the Complainant on 11.04.2011.

          State Commission after taking into consideration that the respondent had been unnecessarily and unduly harassed for 15 years allowed the complaint in the following terms:-

“Consequently, while allowing the complaint with cost and highlighting these point that the possession of the flat in question have been handed over to the complainant on 11.04.2011, the opposite party is hereby directed to rectify the remaining deficiency in the above note flat, within the period of 3 month(s) and complete the execution of the sale deed etc and other formalities as per rule.

The opposite party is also directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the various dates on which the amount has been deposited by the complainant in the respect of the above noted flat till the date of taking possession on 11.04.2011.

The complainant’s father and brother had to come (to) India many times with regard to possession, therefore the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 is ascertained on this account, which will be paid by opposite party.  The complainant has suffered mental and physical agony for long time and in spite of her request, the flat has not been allotted to her at the lower floor therefore the cost of Rs. 1,00,000 is assessed on this account which will be paid by the opposite party to the complainant.”

-6-

Counsel for the appellant contends that since the appellant has given possession of the flat to the respondent at the old price and the respondent has gained by way of appreciation of the flat, the State Commission erred in awarding Rs.5 Lac by way of compensation and Rs.1 Lac for not allotting the floor at the lower floor.  She further contends that the rate of interest   @ 18% p.a. is on the higher side.

We do not find any substance in the first two submissions.   Respondent had booked the flat in the year 1992 and she had made the entire payment by the year 1994.  Instead of allotting the flat at the               3^rd/4^th floor as per request, the appellant offered to give possession of the flat on the 10^th floor which was not accepted by the respondent because she was suffering from vertigo.  Since the respondent has been unduly harassed for 15 years and the respondent had to come to India from London twice on her own expense, the State Commission was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.5 Lacs.  Since the flat had not been offered to her as per her choice and was given the flat at the 11th floor, the State

-7-

Commission is also justified in awarding  compensation of Rs.1 Lac.  No ground to interfere with the first two directions of the State Commission is made out.

However, we feel that the rate of interest @ 18% p.a. is on the higher side.  Normally, in such cases we have awarded interest ranging from 9% to 12%.  Since the respondent has been awarded compensation, we reduce rate of interest from 18% to 9% p.a.  Order of the State Commission is upheld except to the extent that the rate of interest is reduced from 18% to 9%.

Under the directions of this Commission, appellant had deposited Rs.6 Lac before this Commission.  Office is directed to release the sum of Rs.6 Lacs to the respondent along with accrued interest in part satisfaction of the decree.

Appellant is directed to pay the balance interest amount @ 9% to the respondent within eight weeks from today, failing which the respondent would be at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law.

-8-

Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.