For Puma Realtors             :        Mr. Amit Bansal &

Mr. Saumyen Das, Advocates

Mr. Ajay Kurichh, A/R of Appellant

Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate (in FA/758/2015,

FA/1030/2015, FA/1031/2015 & FA/1032/2015)

For the Complainants        :        Mr. R.K. Dikshit, Advocate

Ms. Ritu Sharma, Advocate &

Mr. Jitender Kumar Advocate in First Appeals No. 531/2016, 554/2016, 578/2016, 612/2016, 614/2016, 691/2016, 704/2016, 798/2016, 799/2016, 1341/2016, 1383/2016, 1458/2016, 1764/2016, 1765/2016, 1766/2016, 1774/2016, 398/2017, 1117/2017, 1118/2017

Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate in

First Appeals No. 758/2015, 812/2015, 1031/2015, 1032/2015, 553/2016, 579/2016, 615/2016, 616/2016 & 688/2016.

Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate in

First Appeal No. 812/2015

Mr. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate in

First Appeals No. 555/2016, 617/2016, 618/2016, 689/2016, 690/2016, 1368/2016, 1391/2016 & 1457/2016

Mr. Sudhir Mahajan, Advocate in

First Appeal No. 1030/2015

Mr. Rajeev Sagar, Advocate in First Appeals No. 1768/2017, 1769/2017,

   1963/2017 & 1964/2017

Mr. Prannoy Dey, Advocate for HDFC in First Appeal Nos. 690/2016

Pronounced On :  11^th  October, 2018.

O R D E R

PER HON’BLE M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

Aggrieved by the orders in Consumer Complaint Nos. 170, 132, 133, 181, 172, 214, 265, 177, 209, 171, 176, 180, 182, 213, 231, 249, 255, 264, 309, 99 & 237 of 2015; Consumer Complaint Nos. 784, 893, 230, 173, 226, 237, 123, 229, 221, 249, 365, 256, 555, 15, 25, 75 & 95 of 2016 and in Consumer Complaint Nos. 121 & 122 of 2017, Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and their Authorized Representative preferred the Appeals. The Complainant chose to challenge the impugned order in Consumer Complaint Nos. 99 of 2015 and Consumer Complaint No. 121 & 122 of 2017. Since all these Appeals pertain to common facts relating to the same project namely IREO Hamlet, all these Appeals are being disposed of by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience, First Appeal No. 831 of 2016 of Ms. Abha Arora is being taken as the lead case.

2.       By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint in part and directed the Appellants to refund an amount of Rs.65,56,513/- to Ms. Abha Arora’s with interest @ 12% compounded quarterly  from the date of receipt of a copy of the order together with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and costs of Rs.50,000/-. The details of the decretal amounts of the other Complainants are reproduced as hereunder:

3.       The facts in the lead case are that the Complainant purchased a plot from the Opposite Parties bearing No. 343 admeasuring 250.50 sq. yd.  in IREO Hamlet, Sector 98, Mohali, Punjab, which is a part of the approved Mega Housing Project. On 13.05.2011, the Complainant made an Application for the said purpose and paid Rs.56,00,000/- as booking amount, against which a Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 19.08.2011, wherein the basic price of the plot  was fixed at Rs.64,96,750/-excluding External Development Charges (EDC), Preferential Location Charges (PLC) etc. The Complainant accepted a time linked payment plan and she was required to make 95% payment of the total sale consideration within 18 months from the date of allotment of the plot. The balance 5% of the sale consideration was to be paid on delivery of the possession of the plot. It was averred that as per clause 11.1 of the Agreement, physical possession of the plot was to be delivered to the Complainant after development of the same, within 24 months, with an additional grace period of 6 months, but not later than a maximum period of 30 months, from the date of execution of the said Agreement, plus 12 months more against payment of penal amount. On a demand being raised by the Opposite Parties in respect of the said plot, it was pleaded that the Complainant deposited all the amounts within time except for a minor delay for which the penal amount with interest was duly paid by the Complainant. It was stated that the possession of the plot was to be delivered on or before 18.02.2014 as per the terms of the Agreement and it could have been further delayed by 12 months only on payment of penalty/ delayed compensation of Rs.50 per sq. yd., per month, for the period of delay.

4.       It was pleaded by the Complainant that when there was no development observed on the said site, she had requested the Opposite Parties to state as to when the possession would be given after completing the development work. When there was no promised date given, the Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 19.02.2016, seeking refund of the amount paid by her. The Complainant placed reliance upon a communication received under RTI given by Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) to one Mr. P.S. Saini stating that the promoters/ realtors are to complete the development work at the project before handing over possession of the plots and as per notification issued on 02.09.2011, they are bound to get the Completion Certificate of their project. The Complainant has also relied on a similar communication dated 19.05.2015, stating that the electricity supply  is not available at the site; on communication dated 03.07.2015, stating that the promised roads were not available at the site and sewerage and storm water drainage lines were not available at the site.   

5.       It was further pleaded  by the Complainant that her plot was changed from Plot No. 343 to Plot No. 184 and when she had objected to the same and communicated to the Opposite Parties vide email, there was no response. Thereafter the Opposite Parties without developing the site, offered paper possession of the said plot vide letter dated 21.05.2015, only to avoid giving refund of the amount deposited by the Complainant and to avoid paying compensation. Hence the Complainant approached the State Commission seeking refund of her amount with interest, compensation and costs.

6.       The first Opposite Party namely M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. filed their Written Version stating that in view of the issuance of notice of possession dated 21.05.2015, the Complaint was infructuous; that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint on account of Arbitration Clause; that reliance was placed on general clause 33 of the Agreement; that there was no promise to provide any service;  that the plot in question was purchased for future gain and therefore the Complainant is not a Consumer; that the Complainant did not make timely payments of the sale consideration and is therefore not entitled to get  benefit of the fixed period stipulated in the Agreement; that as per clause 11.2 the Complainant can claim penalty for any delay in handing over of possession and that the Complainant did  not terminate the Agreement and that there is a delay of one day to two months in the Complainant’s making the requisite payment to the Opposite Parties.

7.       It was admitted that penal interest amount was charged by the Opposite Parties, the charges made against EDC and PLC, that the initial payment plan was time linked and was thereafter converted  into development linked payment plan and further that the possession of the plot was to be delivered within 30 months plus 12 months on payment of delayed compensation from the date of execution of the Agreement. It was also stated that payments were demanded on completion of development work in a phased manner and that the development work namely sewerage, electricity, water and rain harvesting line were complete and that the lines were laid underground.

8.       In the Written Version it was pleaded that on roads only black topping remained to be done and the rest of the work was complete. It was pleaded that physical possession of the plot was handed over only after completion of the Development work at the site and that the Opposite Parties were developing a ‘Mega Housing project’ over an area admeasuring 132 acres duly approved under Punjab State Industrial Policy in the year 2003 and that the notification dated 14.08.2008, exempted the project in question from the provisions of , 1995 (PAPRA Act). It was further pleaded that the circular dated 02.09.2014 is not applicable to the project as there is no mandate to acquire the Completion Certificate. The change of location of plot was also admitted in the Written Version.

9.       It was stated that the project IREO Hamlet was divided into two parts by one internal road. The said road was to be jointly developed by the first Opposite Party and another developer  in sector 98 Mohali and the said developer has not undertaken development of its project and as such the construction of the said road could not be completed. It was pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on their behalf as the development work was completed, Completion Certificate  was not mandatory and offer of possession was given way back on 21.05.2015.

10.        The State Commission, while allowing the Complaint in part dealt extensively with the question  as to whether the Complaint should be referred to an Arbitrator and has given elaborate findings. This Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 701 of 2015, Aftab Singh Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr., has laid down that though there is a clause of Arbitration in the Agreement it is not a bar for the Consume Fora to adjudicate the issue  and the same has attained finality as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed this principle vide order dated 13.02.2008 in Civil Appeal No.(s). 23512-23513 of 2017.

11.     The State Commission has observed that basic facilities like roads, sewerage, drinking water, electricity, street lights, drainage etc. were to be provided  by the Opposite Parties and the payment towards price of  plot was to be made in a time bound manner,  which was admittedly later converted into development linked plan and therefore the amount was to be paid in parts, as per development of the project, taking place at the spot and therefore rejected the argument of the counsel for the Opposite Parties  that the Opposite Party Company shall carry out internal development within the project and that the external development would be the responsibility of the State Government.

12.     The State Commission has relied on the report of two Local Commissioners who were appointed vide order dated 15.10.2015, to inspect the project site. The State Commission placed reliance on the Local Commissioners’ Report dated 24.10.2015 and observed as follows:

“…Reading of the said report, makes it very clear that development was not complete at the spot, as on date, No approach road was available to the project. The land to construct road was not even acquired by the Government. Some narrow approach road to the project is provided, as per information, it runs through many villages in a zig-zag manner. With the report, photographs are annexed. Perusal thereof makes it very clear that most of the development which has been made at the site, is fresh. It appears to have been made after the date, when Local Commissioners were appointed on 15.10.2015. Everything appears to have been laid fresh. There is nothing on record, to show that approach gate on the backside and narrow road following the same is approved one. In rebuttal, some documents received under the RTI Act, 2005, have been placed on record, by the complainant, showing that necessary permissions/ approvals from the Competent Authorities  were not obtained  by the Opposite Parties, before possession of the plot was offered to her. Both the parties have filed objections against the said report. It is not necessary to go into details, of those objections, because even if it is admitted that development was complete on the date when the Local Commissioners visited the site, in view of the findings given above, no relief can be given to the opposite parties. Accordingly, contention of the opposite parties that possession of the plot was offered to the complainant, after complete development work, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.”

13.     While allowing the Complaint on merits, the State Commission has observed in paras 45 to 47 as follows:

“45. It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded can be granted, in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.65,56,513/- was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite parties, for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, the opposite parties were charging heavy rate of interest, for the period of delay in making payment of instalments.  It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the right to interest. It was also so said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by her, to the tune of Rs.65,56,513/- alongwith interest compounded quarterly @12% from the respective dates of deposits (less than the rate of interest charged by the opposite parties, in case of delayed payment), till realization.

46. Further, to deny the claim of the complainant(s), it was also argued by Senior Counsel for the opposite parties/ builder that as per Clause 11.3 of the Agreement, they (complainants) could have opted for termination of the Agreement, only after the lapse of 42 months aforesaid, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement) i.e. 24 months plus (+) 6 months plus (+) 12 months, till the notice of possession is dispatched, whereas, on the other hand, in all the cases, possession has been offered, as such, the option to terminate the same (Agreement) by them (complainants) has been irrevocably lapsed.  Further, in some cases, since offer of possession has been made to the allottees, within the period of 42 months, from the date of execution of the Agreement, as such, they were barred to opt termination of the Agreement, as per Clause 11.3.

      Before discussing effect of aforesaid arguments, it is necessary to note down the provisions of Clauses 11.1 and 11.2 of the Agreement dated 19.08.2011. The provisions read thus:-

“11.1 - Subject to Force Majeure, as defined herein, and further subject to the Allottee having complied with all its obligations under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and not being in default of any provision(s) of this Agreement including but not limited to the timely payment of all dues and charges including the total Sale Consideration, registration charges, stamp duty and other charges, and also subject to the Allottee having complied with all formalities or documentation as prescribed by the Company, the Company proposes to hand over the possession of the said Plot to the Allottee within a period of 24 (Twenty Four) months from the date of execution of this Agreement (“Commitment Period”). The Allottee further agrees and understands that the Company shall additionally be entitled to a period of 6 (Six) months (“Grace Period”), after the expiry of the said Commitment Period.

11.2-Subject to Clause 11.1, if the Company fails to offer possession of the said Plot to the Allottee by the end of the Grace Period, it shall be liable to pay to the Allottee compensation calculated at the rate of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only) per sq. yd. of the area of the said Plot (“Delay Compensation”) for every month of delay until the actual date fixed by the Company for handing over of possession of the said Plot to the Allottee. The Allottee shall be entitled to payment against such ‘Delay Compensation’ only after completion of all documentation including registration of the Conveyance Deed”.

     Perusal of aforesaid provisions, makes it very clear that as per Clause 11.1, handing over possession of the plot is subject to force majeure circumstances. Clause 11.2 stipulates that the stipulation contained therein is subject to the provisions of Clause 11.1. It is not open to the builder to get 12 months, on payment of delayed compensation, as a matter of right. It has to be shown, whether there was any circumstance, which didn't allow providing of infrastructure at the site. No such circumstance has been added to claim above period of 12 months. Further, there is nothing on record to show that at the end of 30 months period, to get further period of 12 months, any attempt was made, to make offer of payment of delayed compensation, as envisaged in Clause 11.2 of the Agreement. Even in the notice of offer of possession, which has been held to be paper one, it is not even mentioned that payment of delayed compensation will be made to the complainant, on completion of documentation, including registration of the conveyance deed. The above said stipulation qua payment of delayed compensation amount, after registration of conveyance deed, appears to be draconian. It is totally one sided. As such, it could be termed as unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties. Furthermore, in the present case, admittedly, possession of the plot was offered after the lapse of 42 months i.e. 24 months plus (+) 6 months plus (+) 12 months, as such, the above arguments need to be rejected.

     Otherwise also, as has been held in large number of cases, the payment of paltry amount of compensation, virtually would amount to no compensation for the loss caused to a consumer. The amount offered is not even equal to simple interest being offered by the Banks, against saving bank account. On account of inaction, on the part of the opposite parties, in not fulfilling their obligation under the contract, the very purpose of Agreement has failed and it is open to the complainant to claim refund of her amount, with interest, notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 11.3 of the Agreement.  The argument raised by Senior Counsel for the opposite parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, is rejected.   

47. We have noted with concern, a very serious deficiency committed by the opposite parties, in providing service to the complainant. As per admitted facts on record, External Development Charges (EDC) @Rs.1275.10 per square yard, are payable by the complainant to the opposite parties. Service tax is also payable by the complainant. As per record, EDC and service tax amount was paid in steps, by the complainant to the opposite parties. As per law and otherwise also, it is expected that the said amount might have been deposited by the opposite parties with the Government/Local Authorities, to provide necessary external infrastructure needed for enjoyment of the plots/units purchased by the consumers. As has been discussed in earlier part of this order, 30 months period was available without penalty, with the opposite parties to press with the Government, on payment of EDC, for providing necessary external infrastructure. Very conveniently, in Clause 21.2 it was provided by the opposite parties that they shall carry out only internal development, within the boundary of the project, which includes laying of roads, water lines, sewer lines, electric lines etc. However, the external linkages for those services, beyond the periphery of the project, is to be provided by the State Government or the Local Authorities. Even if it is presumed, only for the sake of arguments, as on today, the opposite parties may have laid down water lines, sewer lines, storm water drains, roads, electricity, horticulture etc., within the project, admittedly, those lines are not connected with the main lines, to be provided by the State Government or the Local Authorities. For a proper use of plots/units purchased, it is necessary that those lines are connected with the main lines, so that there is no hindrance in enjoying the property purchased.”

14.     Both sides have filed their Written Submissions.

15.     Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued that 42 months for handing over of possession lapsed on 19.02.2015 and after the said date the Complainant could have terminated the Agreement if she was not inclined to take delivery of the subject plot after the committed period, but did not exercise her choice but instead continued to make payments towards sale consideration in respect of demands raised on 19.02.2015 and on 23.04.2015.  The counsel submitted that on 13.04.2015 and on 20.05.2015, which date is just prior to the notice of the possession issued by the Appellant, the Complainant made substantial payments of Rs.6,20,211/- and Rs.7,07,040/- which amounts to 20% of the total sale consideration and therefore the Complainant is estopped from claiming refund of the amount as it was only on 19.06.2015  i.e. one month after the date of offer of possession, that the Complainant sought for refund. Learned counsel drew our attention to the observation made by the Local Commissioners in their report regarding  internal roads, the project road, water supply, electricity supply, sewerage pipelines and sewerage treatment plan (STP) storm water pipelines and rain water harvesting, the construction  made regarding the entrance gate, guard house boundary wall and also the green belt and fire hydrants. He vehemently contended that all these amenities as can be seen in the annexures filed along with the Written Version, the basic amenities are provided and that the claim of the Complainant that paper possession was given is totally baseless and false. The Local Commissioners were appointed on 15.10.2015 and it was not possible to carry out the Development work within a period of 9 days and that the black topping was not done as the same would have got damaged upon commencement of the construction activities. It was contended that the State Commission has not taken into consideration their objections filed to the Local Commissioners’ Report and that the observation that the Appellant did not deposit the EDC charges collected from the Complainant is perverse as the same was not based on any evidence or fact on record. It was submitted that the Appellant is exempted from acquiring a Completion certificate under Section 14 of the PAPRA Act, by the Government of Punjab, vide notification dated 14.08.2008 issued under Section 44 (2) of the PAPRA Act in  respect of a similar Mega Project  also situated in the State of Punjab. Vide letter dated 02.09.2015, Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority categorically stated on record that M/s IREO Waterfront Private Limited  has  so far not applied for a Completion Certificate and that there was no bar on the sale of plots in the absence of issuance of the Completion/ Partial Completion Certificate.  It was submitted that the same is applicable to the Appellants project also. Learned counsel further submitted that the letter dated 22.09.2016,handed over  to this Commission was duly replied by the Appellants vide letter dated 22.11.2016, wherein it was categorically submitted that the Appellants were not required to obtain Completion Certificate in view of the exemption dated 14.08.2008.

16.     As against the argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the final layout plan was sanctioned only on 15.05.2013, subsequent to the execution of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement, learned counsel appearing for Appellants submitted that the layout plan was sanctioned on 11.04.2008 and that it was only the revised layout plan which was approved by the Competent Authority  from time to time. The revised layout plan was approved on 06.02.2011 and on 15.05.2013. He further contended that permanent connection of electricity is provided only when the construction of the plot is complete  and not at the stage of development; temporary electric connection was duly available at the site; electrification of the project site is part of the external development works and is to be completed by GMADA in coordination with Punjab State Power Corporation Limited; Appellants completed all the development works in accordance with clause 21.2 of the Agreement including  installation of substation, transformers, High Tension Line and Low Tension Line, 30 feeder pillars for supplying electricity to individual  plot holders  been installed, street lights are in working condition and all these have been evidenced in the Local Commissioners’ Report. He emphasized  that GMADA has granted Partial Completion Certificate  to the Appellants and this further evidences that all the development work have been carried out in accordance with the approved plans dated 18.05.2015.

17.     Learned Counsel for the Complainant vehemently argued that GMADA had nowhere mentioned in their RTI reply that Appellants were exempted from obtaining completion certificate; that while granting exemption under notification dated 14.08.2008, the Appellants were to apply for the Completion Certificate in accordance with the notification dated 02.09.2014 issued by the department of Housing and Urban Development; the exemption provided under provisions of PAPRA Act  are subject to certain terms and conditions which were not complied with by the Appellants; this non compliance  is in contradiction to condition no. 7 of the Agreement; that the project could not have been advertised without getting the approvals from the concerned authorities; that the offer of possession  was a paper possession as the development works were not completed; that even newspapers dated 04.07.2015 reported that there were no roads and infrastructure present at the site and that the Completion Certificate was applied on 15.07.2015 and it was informed to the Appellants vide letter No. 3800 dated 07.10.2016 to produce certain documents which have not been submitted till date. Learned counsel argued that the Appellant tried to hurriedly complete the basic amenities  just prior to the Local Commissioner’s inspection and as per the information received  under RTI on 19.10.2015, electricity load of 30 KV was released by them and this was done by the Appellants only to exhibit to the Local Commissioner that basic amenities  were provided at the site, however, no regular load was ever released at that time and this effort was made by the Appellants only to mislead the Local Commissioner.

18.     Since the facts regarding the payments, the execution of the Agreement, the Extra Development Charges, the time stipulated for the delivery of the possession are all admitted facts, we first address ourselves to whether the contention of the Appellants that they are not mandated to obtain any Completion Certificate can be sustained. At this juncture it is relevant to reproduce condition 6 (ii) of the Agreement dated 03.04.2006 entered into between the Appellants and the State Government.

“The company would abide by the instructions issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development from time to time and including the instructions issued vide letter no. 17/65/2005-IHG2/192 dated 10.01.2006”

As per the aforenoted condition, it is relevant to note that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has issued instructions on 02.09.2014, specifying the procedure for obtaining Partial Completion and Completion Certificate. It is seen from the record that the Appellant had applied for Completion Certificate as per the notification dated 02.09.2014. For better understanding of the case the notification dated 14.08.2008 is reproduced as hereunder:

“Government of Punjab

Department of Housing and Urban Development

(Housing II Branch)

Notification

The 14^th August, 2008

No. CTP (Pb) MPR-37/5470- whereas the notification to exempt the Housing Project of M/s PUMA Realtors Pvt. Ltd., (a subsidiary of M/s IREO Funds), falling in Sector 98 covering an area of 100.05 acres under PAPRA Act was issued -  vide No. CTP (Pb) MPR-37/5210, dated 12^th June, 2008 however, an area measuring 7.4 acres falling in Sector 99 of S.A.S. Nagar could not be included in advertently in this notification.

Whereas Now, in super session to the earlier notification,  the Governor of Punjab in exercise  of the powers vested in him under Section 44 (2)  of the Punjab  Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (Punjab Act No. 14 of 995) and all others powers enabling him to act in this behalf, is pleased to issue  revised notification by including 100.05 acres falling in Sector 98 and 7.40 acre area falling in sector 99 to exempt the aforesaid Housing Project of M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (a subsidiary of M/s IREO Funds) from the provision of PAPR Act, 1995 except section 32.

Whereas the Industrial Policy, 2003 (infrastructure including those in Housing and Urban Development) provides that the concessions  granted to Housing Projects in the State as per Annexure-IV in the meeting of Empowered Committee held on 29the August, 2005 would be exempted from the provision of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995 (Punjab Act No. 14 of 1995).

2. And, whereas M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (a subsidiary of M/s IREO Funds) 5, Dhanraj Chambers, First Floor, Satbari, New Delhi have already been granted approval by the Punjab Government, Department of Housing and Urban Development for setting up of Residential Project at village Sambhalki, Dhol, Sukhgarh, Bhago Majra,  Dist. S.A.S. Nagar.

3. And, whereas the requisite legal agreement has already been executed on behalf of the Punjab Government by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development with the aforesaid company and circulated – vide Memo NO. 17/59/05- Flg 2/3120, dated 19^th April, 2006 consequent upon the decision taken in the meeting of the Empowered Committee  for consideration of Special Package of Incentives to the Projects of Special Significance held on 29^th August, 2005 under the chairmanship of Chief Minister, Punjab.

4. And, whereas the Governor of Punjab is of the opinion that company has fulfilled all the conditions , which are required to be fulfilled before the grant of exemption under Section 44 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995.

5. This exemption is issued subject to the following terms and conditions that:-

(i) The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the layout plan sanctioned by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab (Competent Authority) keeping in view with such general guidelines as the Department of Housing and Urban Development may issue in respect of such Housing Projects from time to time.

(ii) The promoters of the Housing Project shall strictly abide by the aforesaid legal agreement dated 3^rd April, 2006 signed by them as well as various Notifications issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development enunciating and enumerating the policy  parameters governing such Housing Projects.

(iii) The promoters shall deposit the entire amount in respect of the contribution to the Punjab Urban Development Fund, created under Section 32 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995 (Act no. 14 of 19995), within a period of 30 days of the sanctioning of their layout plan.

(iv) The promoter acquires the entire project land in its name including land under agreement to develop and required to be acquired by Government.

(v) The promoter shall be responsible for obtaining the Final NOC from Punjab Pollution Control Board.

 (vi) Before starting the development of the proposed project promoter shall obtain environmental clearance from the Minister of Environmental and Forest, Government of India as required under EIA notification dated 14^th September, 2007 as well as  consent (NOC) from the Punjab Pollution Control Board.

 (vii) Promoter will not carry out any works on the site till above conditions are fulfilled.

Chandigarh                                                             ARUN GOEL,

The 1^st August, 2008               Secretary to Government of Punjab,

Department of Housing and urban Development”

(Emphasis Supplied)

19.     It is significant to note that as per the information dated 16.02.2017, it has been categorically informed  by GMADA that the Appellants had applied for Partial Completion Certificate on 16.07.2015 for its Mega Project in Sector 86,96 and 99 and due to non production of certain documents, GMADA wrote to the Appellant on 07.10.2016 to produce the required documents, which have not been produced till date and therefore matter pertaining to issuance of completion certificate is pending consideration by the said Authority. It is also relevant to reproduce the letters dated 18.05.2015 written by GMADA  to the Appellants herein and also the reply to the request letter dated 11.04.2013, written by the Chief Town Planner to the Appellant herein and the same are detailed as hereunder:

Letter dated 18.05.2015 written by GMADA to the Petitioner

“To

              M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

SCO No. 6-7-8

Sector 9-D,

Chandigarh

Letter No. GMADA-D.E. (C-I)-15/58

Dated: 18.05.2015

Subject:-        Mega Housing Project M/s Puma Realtors in Sector 86,97,98,99, 105 & 106 S.A.S. Nagar-Service Plans

Please refer to your letter dated 16-4-2015 vide which services plans for the subject cited work were resubmitted by you after clarification of observations raised by this office. Service plans submitted by you were to be verified for depth & size of Water Supply & Sewerage lines. Accordingly, the service plans have been scrutinized  with respect to depth & size of Water Supply and Sewerage lines by GMADA and the same are hereby verified for integration of these services with Trunk Services keeping in view the overall planning of Trunk Services for the entire grid area as per approved Master Plan.

    Also, as per the condition no. xv, xvi, xvii of the CLU issued by Govt. of Punjab vide letter Memo No. 928 CTP (PB)/SP-432m dated 15-2-2015, and terms and conditions of lay out plan/revised lay out plan approved by Competent Authority  vide letter NO. 2614 CTP (PB)/MPR-37 dated 15-5-2013, Promoter shall make provision for the disposal of rain/storm  water of the surrounding  area and make provision of rain water harvesting within the project area at its own cost, Promoter would make its own suitable provision for drinking water supply and disposal of sewage & solid waste management. Therefore, the arrangements for suitable provision for drinking water supply and safe disposal of sullage/storm discharge and solid waste management shall be made by promoter at his level separately and he shall obtain all necessary approvals from the concerned Authorities as per law in this regard independently. The construction work shall commence only after obtaining approvals as per law from the concerned Authorities.

Promoter shall also comply with the following:-

1. The Promoter shall construct roads as per IRC guidelines and MORTH specifications.

2. The Promoter shall use CI/DI pipes duly ISI marked for water supply and of required pressure rating.

3. The Promoter shall install sufficient number of tube wells keeping in view the actual water requirements of the MEGA Project.

4. For sewerage network the Promoter shall use only SW pipes of sewer up to 600 MM dia size and above this size they shall provide pressure type brick sewers as per PWD (PH) specifications.

5. The Promoter shall install Sewage Treatment Plant of required capacity to achieve the parameters of effluentand disposal of discharge as per requirements of Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) and as per technologyapproved by PPCB.

6. The Promoter shall ensure that the drainage of area through any natural drain/ drains shall not be obstructed.

7. The Promoter shall ensure that maximum capacity of rain water is recharged in ground by using recharging system as per approved scheme of Central Ground Water Board.

8. The Promoter shall execute the work of FT/LT electrical lines as per the scheme approved by PSPCL.

9. The Promoter shall abide by all other Terms and Conditions of LOI/ Agreement and other approvals of concerned authorities before/ during execution of works.

10. The Promoter shall allow the connectivity of services (Sewerage and Storm drainage) for ensuring proper dove tailing of the respective services of any Mega Project, which may come up on the upstream side of his pocket.

11. The promoter shall secure the required permission of competent authority before laying services under the RevenueRasta, if any

12. The Promoter shall make his own arrangement for connectivity of his pocket till the peripheral roads of their area with peripheral roads along the sector dividing roads as per approved Master Plan and overall planning of GMADA shall rest with promoter.

13. The promoter shall ensure adhering to all provision of Punjab Planning and Development Authority Act, 1995.

14. The promoter will get the work inspected stage wise from the Engineering department of GMADA.

     

    ……….Vernacular language…….

DA: 3 NO. Service plans

Divisional Engineer (C-I)

Cum-coordinator Mega Projects,

For Chief Engineer,

GMADA, Mohali.

Reply to the request letter dated 11.04.2013

From

         Chief Town Planner

Punjab at PUDA Bhawan

6^th Floor, SAS Nager

To     

          M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited,

SCO NO. 6-8, First Floor, Sector 9-D,

Madhya Marg, Chandigarh

Subject:- Approval of the revised layout plan of integral Mega Township at Sector 86,97,98,99,105 and 106, Mohali, Punjab- M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited

          Reference:- Request letter dated 11.04.13

                 You submitted that revised layout plan for Phase-I Rakba 85.25 Acres out of Rakba 145.00 Acres, for your project vide drawing NO. PUMA-MO-LP-05 dated 28.07.2011 for technical approval, to which the layout plan committee vide meeting dated 05.04.2013 discussed on it. In respect of this project GMADA Letter No. GMADA/DTP/2013/670 dated 5.3.2013 was received alongwith No Due Certificate for technical approval, subject to the following conditions:-

1. You will be bound to comply with the directions mentioned in the CLU.

2. You will be bound to make entry/ connected road of 100’ road with 35’ service lane.

3. You will be bound to make rain water harvesting system and solar water heating system in the project.

4. You will be bound to take necessary NOC from Punjab Pollution Control Board.

5. You will be bound to take all necessary permissions regarding roads/ utilization etc from Development Authority.

6. You are required to take necessary permission if there is any changes in the revised layout plan or maps already approved.

7. If at the time of demarcation of layout plan if there is any change in master planyou have to take permission from Plan/Master Flat; SAS Nagar immediately.

8. The work at site could only be started and advertisement could onlyt be made for sale of any unit after taking permission for exemption from PAPRA Act.

9. All the basic amenities would be provided as per policies of the Government.

10. You will take necessary NOC in compliance of notification dated 17.09.06 issued by Indian Government (Ministry of Environment and Forest).

11. Necessary permission shall be taken from the PSPCL regarding provision of electricity work for the project.

12. Building/ Unit shall be got passed from competentauthority in the project.

13. You are bound to take permission from the forest Department before any construction work of the building, if required.

14. You shall apply EWS Housing as per the policy of the Government in your project.

15. You cannot sold the area in respect of layout plan (11) SAS which has been hypothecated by you.

16. You shall take all permissions from the competent authorities for development work, roads, water level, sewerage line size and depth from concerned Development Authority and service Plan GMADA Engineering Wing.

17. You are bound to keep the ways of the revenue rasta as it is.

18. You are bound to pay all the necessary and required charges as and when demanded by the Government.

Encl: as above

Sd/-

Senior Town Planner

Chief Town Planner, Punjab”

20.     It is pertinent to note that the Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development has issued Circular No. 4966-CTP (PB)/SP-458 dated 02.09.2014 in which all the prerequisites to be completed prior to obtaining  a Completion Certificate for all Mega Projects falling outside municipal limits has been clearly laid down. From a perusal of the aforesaid notifications, guidelines and correspondences, it is absolutely clear that the Appellant/ Developer has to obtain all clearances including Completion Certificate.

21.     The Issue whether legal possession can be offered without completion certificate has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Fakirchand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [III (2008) CPJ 48 SC] and in several judgements of this Commission namely, Kamal Kishore & Anr. Vs. Supertech Ltd., [II (2017) CPJ 45 (NC)] and  Treaty Construction & Anr. Vs. Ruby Tower Co-op Hsg. Society Ltd. & Ors. [II (2018) CPJ 54 (NC)], it was held that offering possession without obtaining Occupancy/ Completion Certificate is meaningless since the allottee is not permitted in law to occupy the house. The same principle is applicable for Plots also. Further in the RTI information given by GMADA to one Mr. P.S. Saini it is clearly informed that the Appellants were to complete development work at the project before handing over of the possession of the plot from the notification issued on 02.09.2014, they are bound to get the Completion Certificate of their project. Condition No. 7 of the Agreement dated 03.04.2006, has specifically mentioned “in case the above company fails to comply with the provisions of para 6 (i) and (ii) above within the stipulated period the concessions numerated in para 6(iii) above shall stand automatically withdrawn and the company shall have not claim or liability whatsoever  from the State Government in this regard.” It is apparent from the record that Appellants had failed to comply with the provisions in the notification dated 02.09.2014 in accordance with the aforementioned condition no. 6 (ii) and  as such the concession automatically stood withdrawn. Therefore the contention of the Appellants that it is not mandated for them to acquire the Completion Certificate  does not hold any water. This is further strengthened by the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgements  that no legal possession can be offered without obtaining the Completion/ Occupation Certificate.

22.     After perusing the material on record, we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Complainant that the project cannot be advertised or launched and no money can be collected from the general public till all plans are approved and permissions are acquired from the competent authorities. Learned counsel for the  Appellant vehemently argued that  it was only the revised  layout plans which were approved in 2011 and on 15.05.2013 and this cannot be construed as any breach of condition mentioned in the Agreement dated 03.04.2006. Condition No. 6 (b) is reproduced as hereunder:

“the project shall not be advertised launched and no money will be collected from general public for allotment of land/plot/flat/ any space till such time the layout/ zoning plans are cleared from the competent authorities.”

23.     It is pertinent to note that the Country and Town Planning Department in the information dated 25.06.2015 have informed that no layout plan  for the project  namely IREO Hamlet Section 98,  Mohali was approved  by the office and that the revised layout plans of M/s Puma Realtors  Pvt. Ltd.  Sector 86,97,98, 99, 105 and 106 Mohali were approved by the Chief Town Planning Department only on 15.05.2013. This Commission in Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Limited , 2007 (SCC) NCDRC 28 has observed that the builder collecting money from the prospective buyer without obtaining the required permission and layouts amounts to unfair trade practice as it is the duty of the Developer to first obtain the requisite permissions and only thereafter collect the consideration money from the purchasers. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellants were deficient in their service not only in offering possession without the Completion Certificate but also in advertising and collecting money from the purchasers without acquiring the relevant permissions from the authorities. 

24.     Now we address ourselves to the issue whether the development was complete prior to the offer of possession and also   whether the possession of the said plot had to be handed over to the allottee only after the said development was complete and if the final demarcation and measurement of the subject plot was also completed.  Condition no. 11.5 of the Agreement stipulates as follows:

“ the company shall notify the allottee in writing  to come for final demarcation and measurement of the said  plot and to take over the possession of the said plot (“Notice  of Possession”). The possession of the said plot shall be handed over to the allottee only after final demarcation and measurement of the said  plot.”

25.     A perusal of the condition of notification dated 14.08.2008, that of the service plans dated 18.05.2015 and the aforenoted conditions  stipulate that the IREO Hamlet  project has to abide by all the laws, byelaws rules and regulations as may be made in the Agreement. It is submitted by the Appellants that the water for construction purposes has to be purchased from the authorized vendor and that final measurement can be verified by the purchasers only after taking the possession of the plots which is contrary to condition no. 11.5 of the Agreement. The Architect Report dated 01.07.2015  shows  that the basic amenities like roads, electricity, water and STP are not complete/ functional.

26.     Additionally, the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants that the Complainant did not opt for termination of the Agreement and that since offer of possession has been made to the allottees within the period of 42 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, the purchasers cannot opt for termination of the Agreement provided under Clause 11.3 of the Agreement is unsustainable in the light of the view that clause 11.2 is subject to the provision of clause 11.1, which is subject to  force majeure  circumstances, which conditions were not substantiated by any documentary evidence by the Appellants and therefore we hold that the Appellant cannot get the additional 12 months. Further a perusal of the record does not show any effort made by the Appellants to offer the delayed compensation amount as stipulated in clause 11.2 of the Agreement. It is pertinent to note that notice of offer of possession is silent about any payment of delayed compensation. As the delay in the possession is admitted and we hold that no legal possession can be offered without a completion certificate and it is observed from the record that the partial completion certificate was only obtained on 30.06.2017, we are of the considered view that reliance can be placed on the principle laid down by this Commission in EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Amit Puri, II (2015) CPJ 568 (NC), wherein we have held that when there is a delay in the delivery of the possession and the Complainant has lost faith in the project they are entitled for refund of the amounts deposited by them together with interest from the respective dates of deposit. Some of the Complainants have also taken loans from various banks to fulfill their dream of owning a home and have purchased these plots for the same. The State Commission has awarded interest @ 12% p.a. compounded quarterly. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments  that the Banks have lowered the interest rates and considering the recent downward trend in the rates of interest and the erosion in the value of real estate in the market, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainants are entitled to refund of the amount deposited by them with simple interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization and costs of Rs.50,000/-.

27.     Table with the details of various Complainants, the date of Agreement, the amounts deposited and stipulated date of offer of possession etc., is reproduced as hereunder:

28.     Hence the Appeal Nos. FA/758/2015, FA/1030/2015, FA/1031/2015, FA/1032/2015, FA/531/2016, FA/553/2016, FA/554/2016, FA/555/2016, FA/578/2016, FA/579/2016, FA/612/2016, FA/614/2016, FA/615/2016, FA/616/2016, FA/617/2016, FA/618/2016, FA/688/2016, FA/689/2016, FA/690/2016, FA/691/2016, FA/704/2016, FA/798/2016, FA/799/2016, FA/800/2016, FA/951/2016, FA/1368/2016, FA/1383/2016, FA/1391/2016, FA/1458/2016, FA/1766/2016, FA/398/2017 and FA/1117/2017, preferred by the Opposite Parties are allowed in part modifying the interest rate to 12% p.a. simple interest  and costs of Rs.50,000/-. As damages by way of compensation, is awarded in the form of interest the additional compensation awarded by the State Commission is set aside. Needless to add, the amounts deposited/ withdrawn by the Complainants shall stand adjusted from the decretal amount. Time for compliance is four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall attract simple interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period. Therefore, the default interest rate awarded by the State Commission is also set aside.

29.     First Appeal No. 1341 of 2016 preferred by the Opposite Parties against the impugned order dated 20.09.2016 in CC/230/2016 titled as Lt. Col. Dalvinder Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. is allowed in part modifying the order of the State Commission only with respect to the rate of interest being simple interest @ 12% p.a. instead of compounded quarterly. It is clarified that the period of interest and litigation costs of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the State Commission stands confirmed. As interest has already been awarded by way of damages, additional compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is set aside. Needless to add, the amounts deposited/ withdrawn by the Complainant shall stand adjusted from the decretal amount. Time for compliance is four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract simple interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period. Therefore, the default interest rate awarded by the State Commission is also set aside.

30.     First Appeal No. 1457 of 2016 preferred by the Opposite Parties against the impugned order dated 03.10.2016 in CC/123/2016 titled as Veena Gupta Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. is dismissed as only 9% simple interest has been awarded by way of damages, together with a reasonable compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.50,000/-. The amount of compensation is being retained as in all other cases, interest @ 12% p.a. has been awarded, whereas in this case, the State Commission has awarded only 9% simple interest, the Complainant did not chose to prefer any Appeal. The default interest @ 12% p.a. simple interest awarded by the State Commission also stands confirmed. Needless to add, the amounts deposited/ withdrawn by the Complainants shall stand adjusted from the decretal amount.

31.     First Appeal No. 1764 of 2016 preferred by the Opposite Parties against the impugned order dated  07.11.2016 in CC/221/2016 titled as Satinder Kaur Sehgal & Anr. Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., is allowed in part modifying the order of the State Commission only with respect to the rate of interest being simple interest @ 12% p.a. instead of compounded quarterly. As interest has already been awarded by way of damages, additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is set aside. Litigation costs of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded instead of Rs.35,000/-. It is clarified that the period of interest awarded by the State Commission stands confirmed. Needless to add, the amounts deposited/ withdrawn by the Complainants shall stand adjusted from the decretal amount. Time for compliance is four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall attract simple interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period. Therefore, the default interest rate awarded by the State Commission is also set aside.

32.     First Appeal No. 1765 of 2016 preferred by the Opposite Parties against the impugned order dated 07.11.2016 in CC/249/2016 titled as Dinesh Seth Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., is allowed in part modifying the order of the State Commission only with respect to the rate of interest being simple interest @ 12% p.a. instead of compounded quarterly. It is clarified that the period of interest awarded by the State Commission stands confirmed. As interest has already been awarded by way of damages, additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is set aside. Litigation costs of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded instead of Rs.35,000/-. Needless to add, the amounts deposited/ withdrawn by the Complainant shall stand adjusted from the decretal amount. Time for compliance is four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall attract simple interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period. Therefore, the default interest rate awarded by the State Commission is also set aside.

33.     First Appeal No. 1774 of 2016 preferred by the Opposite Parties against the impugned order dated  15.11.2016 in CC/256/2016 titled as Rubel Goel Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., is allowed in part modifying the order of the State Commission only with respect to the rate of interest being simple interest @ 12% p.a. instead of compounded quarterly. It is clarified that the period of interest awarded by the State Commission is confirmed. As interest has already been awarded by way of damages, additional compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- is set aside. Litigation costs of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded instead of Rs.35,000/-. Needless to add, the amounts deposited/ withdrawn by the Complainant shall stand adjusted from the decretal amount. Time for compliance is four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall attract simple interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period. Therefore, the default interest rate awarded by the State Commission is also set aside.

34.     First Appeal No. 1118 of 2017 preferred by the Opposite Parties against the impugned order dated 17.04.2017 in CC/893/2016 titled as Surender Singh Grewal & Anr. Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., is allowed in part  and the interest @13 % p.a. is modified to simple interest @12% p.a., while confirming the period of interest  as the State Commission has rightly observed that the amounts were paid by the previous allottee uptill 30.11.2012. As interest has already been awarded by way of damages, additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is set aside. However, we are inclined to award litigation costs of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded instead of Rs.35,000/-. Needless to add, the amounts deposited/ withdrawn by the Complainant shall stand adjusted from the decretal amount. Time for compliance is four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall attract simple interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period. Therefore, the default interest rate awarded by the State Commission is also set aside.

35.     Now we address ourselves to the Appeals preferred by the Complainant.

36.     Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/ Complainant in First Appeal No. 812 of 2015, argued that  the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, [(2004) 5 SCC 65]   granted  interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit as the Complainant in the hope of getting a flat was not only deprived of owning a home but was also deprived  of the benefit of escalation  of the price of the said flat. He also relied on the decision of this Commission in GDA Vs. Dinesh Chand Goel, in which 18% interest was granted and the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We find it an appropriate case to rely on the principle of restitutio in integrum and observe that the Complainant should be placed in the same position as he was placed earlier prior to the payment made for the subject plot. However, we are of the view that granting interest @ 18% p.a. is excessive keeping in view the lower bank rates and also the recent erosion in the value of real estate market, we find it appropriate to award simple interest @ 12 % p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of  a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 14% p.a. for the same period. As interest by way of damages has already been awarded, separate compensation awarded by the State Commission is set aside. Needless to add, the amounts deposited/ withdrawn by the Complainants shall stand adjusted from the decretal amount. The order of the State Commission is modified to the extent indicated above and the First Appeal No. 812 of 2015 preferred by the Complainant is allowed in part.

37.     In First Appeal Nos. 1963 and 1964 of 2017 preferred by the Complainants, we find force in the contention of the learned counsel that the offer of possession letter is dated 12.05.2015, whereas as per clause 11.3 of the Plot Buyers Agreement, the developer had to deliver possession within 12 months from the end date of the grace period, which lapsed on 05.01.2015. A perusal  of the material on record shows that there was an email dated 12.06.2015 addressed by the Complainant to the Developer seeking refund on the ground that after the promised date of delivery of possession, the Complainant is entitled to opt for termination of the Allotment/ Agreement and therefore she seeks refund of the amount paid with compensation. There is also a specific averment in the letter that the possession offered to her was illegal. It is pertinent to note that the Developer did not even reply to this email dated 12.06.2015, therefore the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Developer that the Complainant has sought for refund after the offer of possession and is not entitled for the same, is unsustainable. This Commission in EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Amit Puri, II (2015) CPJ 568 (NC) has laid down that if the Developer does not offer possession by the promised date of delivery, it is the discretion of the purchaser   whether to wait for the delivery of possession or seek refund. Therefore we  are of the considered view that the State Commission ought not to have awarded different rate of interest @ 8% p.a. for the delayed period after 12.07.2015, when there is a finding by the State Commission that the offer of letter dated 12.05.2015 is only a paper possession. We hold that the Complainant is entitled to refund of the amounts deposited with simple interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. Needless to add, the amounts deposited/ withdrawn by the Complainants shall stand adjusted from the decretal amount. Time for compliance is four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall attract simple interest @ 14% p.a. In the result, First Appeal Nos. 1963 and 1964 of 2017 preferred by the Complainant are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. First Appeal Nos. 1768 and 1769 of 2017 preferred by the Opposite Parties are also allowed in part modifying the order of the State Commission to the extent of deleting the Compensation and the default interest awarded by the State Commission.

38.     We may mention here that even though the Complainants have been granted simple interest of 12% p.a.  or 9% p.a.  but as the same has been awarded by way of damages the Appellant who has been directed to pay the said amount shall not deduct tax (T.D.S.) under the Income Tax Act 1961 as it is not payment of any interest but only a formula for computation of damages.

39.     The statutory amount deposited in the Appeals preferred by the Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. at the time of filing of the Appeals shall be refunded to the Appellants.