The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant against the order passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji (for short ‘the State Commission’) in CC No.01 of 2016 dated 05.12.2017, whereby the Complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant was partly allowed. 2. On 26.06.2013, Complainant entered into an Agreement with the Opposite Party for purchase of residential flat No.T-1, measuring 116.88 sq. meter, with open terrace of 53.08 sq. meter, for a consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.25 lakhs on the date of Agreement and Rs.11 lakhs in instalments as per the Agreement. Balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs was to be paid at the time of delivery of possession and execution of the sale deed. Delivery of the flat was to be given within six months from the date of Agreement, with a grace period of 3 months in special cases. The Opposite Party, however, failed to deliver the possession of the flat within the stipulated period. Complainant sent emails dated 14.06.2014, 04.07.2014 and 11.07.2014 to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not reply to the emails also. Thereafter, Complainants sent a legal notice on 30.12.2014. Even the legal notice was not replied by the Opposite Party. Claiming deficiency in service, Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission with following prayer: - “(a) Compensate the Complainant for the deficiency in service resulting from the Opposite Party’s failure to comply with his obligations in terms of the para no.6 of the said Agreement for Sale dated 26th June, 2013, by means of payment of the penal interest as provided under the Clause no.7 of the said Agreement for Sale, amounting to the said sum of Rs.22,68,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs sixty thousand) only and payment of further sums of Rs.1,08,000/- (Rupees one lakh eight thousand) only, per month, until the date of delivery of possession of the said premises into the hands of the Complainant with simultaneous execution of the competent Deed of Conveyance for transfer of ownership of the said premises together with the proportionate undivided right and share in the said property corresponding to the built up area of the said premises. (b) Pay the compensation that may be awarded by this Hon’ble Commission in terms of the prayer (a) hereinabove, together with further interest thereon, calculated at the rate of 12% per annum, with effect from the date of the a ward that may be passed by the Commission, until the date of full and effectual payment of the compensation and whatever interest accruing thereon. (c) Pay further and additional compensation to the Complainant by way of damages on account of mental anxiety, torture and inconvenience suffered by the Complainant, besides further legal costs and inconveniences of litigation, that the Complainant is also entitled to. (d) Cause the execution of the competent Conveyance or Deed of sale for transfer of ownership of the said premises in favour of the Complainant together with the proportionate undivided right and share in the said property corresponding to the built up area of 116.88 Sq. mts. of the said premises. (e) To initiate the process for formation of an entity for the regular maintenance of the said property and the Building Scheme, for which the Complainant is ready and willing to pay his proportionate contribution towards defraying the maintenance costs. (f) Any other relief that may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, may also be granted to the Complainant. 3. Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing Written Version. It was stated that it was orally agreed that the possession of the flat was to be given within 24 months from the date of signing of the Agreement, with an extended period of 6 months due to unforeseen circumstances. It was further stated that the delay in handing over the possession occurred because the Complainant sought major changes in the flat. The NGPDA had withheld the completion certificate since the District Collector had not granted the conversion sanad. Opposite Party applied for conversion sanad on 13.12.2007 before the District Collector, North Goa who asked the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,860/- towards conversion fees. Opposite Party could not deposit the said fees due to want of funds. Opposite Party called a meeting of all the flat owners and requested them to make payment of balance amount, but they did not make payment, due to which delay in handing over the possession of the flat occurred. 4. The State Commission, after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, allowed the Complaint with following directions: -: “(a) The OP shall cause the execution of sale deed for transfer of ownership of the said premises in favour of the Complainant together with the proportionate and undivided right and share in the said property corresponding to the built up area of 116.88 square meters of the said premises, within 30 days from today, provided the Complainant pays to the OP the balance consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. (b) The OP shall initiate the process of formation of an entity for regular maintenance of the said property and the building scheme for which the Complainant shall pay his proportionate contribution towards defraying the maintenance costs. (c) The OP shall pay to the Complainant compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental anxiety, torture and inconvenience suffered by the Complainant and towards costs of litigation.” 5. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, Appellant/Complainant filed the present Appeal before this Commission. Heard Learned the Counsel for the Appellant and carefully perused the record. Respondent was proceeded ex-parte. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned order was arbitrary, unilateral, erroneous, misconceived and incorrect as the State Commission passed the impugned order without appreciating the facts and disregarded the applicable laws. It was also submitted that the State Commission arbitrarily ignored clause 7 of the Agreement, according to which Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation @ 3% p.m. (or 36% p.a.) on Rs.36,00,000/-. State Commission had ignored clause 7 of the Agreement, which amounted to violation of doctrine of ‘Contra Proferentum’. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Namrata Singh & Ors. Vs. Director General Civil Aviation (DGCA) & Ors. W.P. (C) 1867/2012. 7. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.06.2013, Complainant entered into an Agreement with the Opposite Party for purchase of a residential flat for a total consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.36 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs were to be paid at the time of delivery of possession. As per para 6 of the Agreement dated 26.06.2013, flat was to be delivered within 6 months from the date of Agreement, with grace period of 3 months. The Opposite Party, however, failed to deliver the possession of the flat within the stipulated period. Complainant sent emails dated 14.06.2014, 04.07.2014 and 11.07.2014 to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not reply to the emails also. Thereafter, Complainants sent a legal notice on 30.12.2014. Even the legal notice was not replied by the Opposite Party. Therefore, a Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission. 8. Regarding quantum of compensation granted by the State Commission, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the doctrine of ‘Contra Proferentum’ shall apply in the instant case. State Commission directed the Opposite Party to execute the sale deed for transfer of ownership of the flat in favour of the Complainant, after receiving the balance amount from the Appellant/Complainant. State Commission held that ‘The original sanction plan has not been produced by the OP. We are not inclined to believe that the delay in delivering possession of the said premises was on account of changes suggested by the Complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.’ Since deficiency in service is established on the part of the Respondent/Opposite Party, Appellant/Complainant is entitled for compensation for the delay in delivery of possession of flat. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rehman Khan and Aleya Sultana & Ors. Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Begur OMR Homes Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors., Civil Appeal No.6239 of 2019 observed that ‘there has been a breach on the part of the developer in complying with the contractual obligation to hand over possession of the flats within a period of thirty six months of the date of agreement as stipulated in clause 11 (a). The failure of the developer to hand over possession within the contractually stipulated period amounts to deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (g), warranting the invocation of the jurisdiction vested in the NCDRC to issue a direction for the removal of the d efficiency in service.’ In the present case, possession was to be handed over within six months with a grace period of three months in special case. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Appellant/Complainant is entitled for compensation for delayed handing over of possession. Accordingly, in addition to the relief granted by the State Commission, the Respondent/Opposite Party shall pay 6% simple interest per annum to the Appellant/Complainant, with effect from due date of possession as per the Agreement, till the date of offer of possession, after receipt of the occupation certificate. Appeal is disposed on the above terms. | 
