1.       This appeal under section 19 of the Act 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 29.07.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 250 of 2013.

2.       Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, including inter alia the impugned Order dated 29.07.2019 and the memorandum of appeal. 

3.       The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 29.07.2019 dismissed the complaint after observing thus:

“17. In the case in hand the complainants have already been paid compensation at the agreed rate. Thus they are not entitled to any further relief. The complaint is dismissed.”

4.       Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the complainants have filed this appeal.

5.       Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned Order falls short of conscionable justice and the appellant has not been adequately compensated for the deficiency of service and for the grievance that has been caused to him. It has been pointed out that similar matters which involved substantially similar issues and which related to the same project, have already come up for adjudication before a coordinate bench and the Orders which were similarly impugned therein were modified to become reasonable in order to redress the grievance of the suffering consumers.  Attention was drawn to the Order dated 30.05.2022 passed in first appeal no. 416 of 2020 – Ariya Priya Shankar & Anr. Vs. Parsvnath Developers Limited & 2 Ors. and first appeal no. 417 of 2020 – Harishankar Gupta Vs.  Parsvnath Developers Limited & 2 Ors.

6.       Learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 builder has been fair enough to submit that there is no substantial difference in the matter at hand and the cases that were decided by the coordinate bench in the afore-said two appeals as have been referred to above.  Learned counsel further submits, on instructions, that the respondents are agreeable if the impugned Order under challenge in the present appeal is also modified in the light of the award that has been passed by coordinate bench in other matters of the same project as have been referred to above.  

7.       It may be apt to quote the relevant extract of the Order that has been passed by the coordinate bench in the first appeal nos. 416 and 417 of 2020 which reads as follows:

21.  Therefore, as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supertech Ltd. V. Rajni Goyal(supra),  we are of the considered view that the Appellants/Buyers are entitled to get fair and reasonable delay compensation till the date Respondents/Opposite Parties obtain Occupancy Certificate. The Order of the State Commission is not proper and reasonable and therefore is liable to be set aside.

22.   In view of the discussion above, the two First Appeals are partly allowed. The Orders of the State Commission are set aside.  Both the Appeals are disposed of with following directions to Respondents/Opposite Parties to :

(1) Complete the construction of the Unit allotted to the Appellants/Complainants in all respects, duly obtaining the requisite Occupancy certificate at its own cost and responsibility within 6 months of this Order.

(2) Pay delay Compensation to both Appellants/ Complainants @8 % per annum on the deposited amount from the proposed date of possession as per the Agreement which will include the grace period of 6 months, till the offer of possession or obtaining Occupancy Certificate whichever is later.

(3) Calculate the delay compensation as per the above direction upto this Order date and pay it to the Appellants within two months failing which 12% interest rate will be applicable. (First Tranche)

(4) Pay delay compensation from the date of this Order till the date of obtaining Occupancy Certificate within two months failing which interest rate will be 12% (Second tranche).

(5) The total compensation as per the above direction shall be adjusted with the Contractual compensation as per the Agreement, if any, already paid by the Respondents/ Opposite Parties to the Appellant/Complainant.

8.       In view of the submissions made by both the counsel and the mutual acceptability on the terms of Order that has been passed by the coordinate bench this bench deems it appropriate to modify the impugned Order accordingly.  Thus the impugned Order stands modified as follows with the direction to: 

(1) Complete the construction of the Unit allotted to the Appellants/Complainants in all respects, duly obtaining the requisite Occupancy certificate at its own cost and responsibility within 6 months of this Order.

(2) Pay delay Compensation to both Appellants/ Complainants @8 % per annum on the deposited amount from the proposed date of possession as per the Agreement which will include the grace period of 6 months, till the offer of possession or obtaining Occupancy Certificate whichever is later.

(3) Calculate the delay compensation as per the above direction upto this Order date and pay it to the Appellants within two months failing which 12% interest rate will be applicable. (First Tranche)

(4) Pay delay compensation from the date of this Order till the date of obtaining Occupancy Certificate within two months therefrom failing which interest rate will be 12% (Second tranche).

9.  The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.