Binoy Kumar, Member

1. The present Appeals Nos. 889, 890 & 891 of 2020 have been filed under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by the Appellant/Opposite Party - Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party’) assailing the Order dated 21.1.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in Complaint No. 161, 162 & 163 of 2019 respectively, whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant was allowed.
2. Since the facts and question of law involved in these appeals are similar except for minor variations in the dates, events and flat numbers, these appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, First appeal No. 889 of 2020 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Consumer Complaint No.889 of 2020.
3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Respondent/Complainant had applied for the purchase of a Plot at IT City, Mohali admeasuring 150 sq. yards at tentative price of Rs.37,50,000/- and paid Rs.3,75,000/- as earnest money to the Opposite Party.  In draw of lots, the Complainant was allotted a Plot measuring 150 sq. yards under the category of Sr. Citizen. Thereafter, a Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 09.10.2018 was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant further paid a sum of Rs.6,37,500/-.  The balance 75% i.e. Rs.26,71,875/- was paid by the Complainant on 6.12.2018.  The Complainant paid the whole amount within 60 days from the date of issue of Letter of Intent,  therefore, he was entitled for a rebate of 5% which was given to the him.  As per terms and conditions in LoI, the possession of the Plot was to be handed over to the Complainant, within 90 days from the issuance of the LoI, i.e. 9.1.2019.  The Complainant vide his letter dated 10.1.2019, requested the Opposite Party to handover the possession of the Plot without any further delay but no reply was given to him.  The Complainant approached the Opposite Party number of times with the request to hand over the possession but to no effect. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the State Commission, Punjab seeking the following reliefs :   
   i. To pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited by the Complainant after 90th day till the date of handing over physical possession of Plot;
   ii. To pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of causing financial risk, hardship, mental agony and harassment etc.
   iii. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of causing financial risk, hardship, mental agony and harassment etc.
   iv. To pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses ; and
   v. Any other relief which this Commission may deem fit.”
    
   4. Upon notice, the Opposite Party has filed its Written Version stating that the Complainant had purchased the Plot for speculation purpose and not for self-residence.  It was submitted that the LoI dated 9.10.2018 contains an arbitration clause No.22 which lays down that all the disputes shall be referred to the Independent Arbitrator.  Therefore, as per said arbitration clause and as per Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the matter deserves to be referred to an Arbitrator.  It is contended by the Opposite Party that draw of lots was conducted in respect of plot sizes to be allotted to the Complainant and thereafter, the allotment letters were issued to the eligible allottees and thereafter, the possession was to be given within a short span of time. The Opposite Party never committed to deliver the possession within 90 days. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
5. The  State Commission allowed the Complaint and held as under :

“To pay interest on the deposited amount at the rate of 9% compounded annually from the stipulated date of possession i.e. 7.1.2019 till the handing over the possession complete in all respects after obtaining Occupation Certificate with complete development of roads, sewer, water and electricity lines etc.

To pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well litigation expenses.”

6. Aggrieved by this Order passed by the State Commission, Appellant/Opposite Party has filed First Appeal No. 889 of 2020 before this Commission with the following prayer :
   1. Allow the present Appeal and set aside the order and judgment dated 21.1.2020 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in CC No.160 of 2019 titled as ‘Nishan Singh Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority’ and/or
   2. Pass any such and further order (s) which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

The Appellant/Opposite Party raised following issues in its appeal which reads as under:

1. The direction of the State Commission to the Appellant to pay interest @9% compounded annually is grossly excessive and is contrary to the to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, II (2019) CPJ 29 SC and this Commission in Chief Administrator in FA 1703 of 2019, wherein it is held that interest at the rate of 5%-9% should be levied by Consumer fora in case of delayed possession.
2. The Appellant submitted that the development works with all amenities are complete with respect to the Plot in question. It had issued the Allotment Letter dated 03.07.2019 to the Respondent and pursuant to clause no. 10 of the Allotment Letter, possession of the plot has been offered to the Respondent. The Respondent can undertake construction of building over the plot after getting the Building plans approved from the Competent Authority.

7. The Respondent/Complainant filed reply against the appeal of the Appellant/Opposite Party and stated that though the Allotment Letter was issued to him on 03.07.2019, possession was only given to him vide possession letter dated 27.10.2020.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the Parties and perused the material available on record.
9.    We find that there is no doubt to the fact that there has been delay in handing over the possession of the Plot. The Appellant/Opposite party was supposed to deliver possession of the Plot on 07.01.2019. The Allotment letter was issued on 03.07.2019 after a significant delay of 6 months and thereafter the Respondent/Complainant got possession on 27.10.2020. The Appellant/Opposite Party has not given any reasonable justification for the above delay.
10. In the present case the Respondent/Complainant has already taken possession of the Plot on 27.10.2020. Thus, now he is entitled for reasonable delay compensation. In this regard attention is drawn to the Order of this Commission in the matter of Vishal Malik and Anr. in CC No. 1238 of 2017 decided on 29.03.2019 which has observed as under:

“ 12. In M/s Supertech Ltd. Vs. Rajni Goyal [Civil Appeal Nis. 6649-50 of 2018] decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23.10.2018, this Commission while directing delivery of possession of the allotted flat to the complainant/respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to pay compensation to him in the form of interest @ 8% p.a. The direction for payment of interest 8% p.a. was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, though the period upto which the compensation was payable was restricted till the date on which the Occupancy Certificate had been obtained. Thus, the award of compensation for the delay in delivery of possession, by way of interest @8% p.a. w.e.f. the committed date for delivery of possession has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred recent decision.

11. Similar view was taken in the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 5785 of 2019 decided on 11.1.2021, wherein it was held as under:
    “  (i) We are of the view that allottees at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 in Chart A are obligated to take possession of the apartments, since the construction was completed, and possession offered on 28.06.2019, after the issuance of Occupation Certificate on 31.05.2019. The Developer is however obligated to pay Delay Compensation for the period of delay which has occurred from 27.11.2018 till the date of offer of possession was made to the allottees.
12. We agree with the contention of the Appellant/Opposite Party that the rate of interest awarded by the State Commission is high. We are of the opinion that delay compensation @ 6% per annum simple interest will meet ends of justice.
13. In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that the Order of the State Commission in all three Appeals do not suffer from any illegality.  We find that there is no merit in the three Appeals as no question of law is involved.  We, therefore, dismiss all the Appeals and partly uphold the Orders of the State Commission by modifying it to the extent that the Opposite Party/Appellant shall pay delay compensation on the deposited amount @ 6% per annum simple interest from the stipulated date of possession i.e. 7.1.2019 instead of 9%.