ORDER (ORAL) The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.04.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.581 of 2017. -2- 2. In brief, the admitted facts are that the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) had booked a flat bearing No.466, Ground Floor having built up area of 1725 sq. ft. for a total cost of ₹55,60,000/- in the project namely “Omaxe Cassia” at Mullanpur, Punjab. She had opted for construction linked payment plan. A Provisional Allotment Letter was also issued to her. An agreement was executed between the parties on 18.05.2012. She continued to make the payment as per demand of the Opposite Party but the possession was not handed over within time and thereafter, she filed the Complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party on the ground of non-delivery of possession. She sought directions qua handing over of possession of the unit to her. 3. The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party on the ground that the unit had been purchased just to earn profit in future. 4. Parties led their evidences before the State Commission and after hearing the arguments and perused the record, the State Commission passed the impugned order. In the impugned order, the State Commission has also observed that the possession of -3- the unit was delivered to the Complainant on 14.01.2018 and therefore, the only issue for consideration with the State Commission was to grant the delay compensation. The State Commission reached to the conclusion that as per clause 23 (b) of the agreement, the construction was to be completed within 30 months which included the grace period of 6 months from the date of signing the allotment letter dated 18.05.2012 and therefore, the possession was to be handed over by 17.11.2014. It concluded that since the possession had been given on 14.01.2018, there was a delay in handing over of the possession and granted compensation for such delay @ 12% p.a. on entire deposited amount from 17.11.2014 till 14.01.2018. It had also awarded compensation of ₹1 Lakh towards mental harassment etc. and litigation costs of ₹22,000/-. 5. In the present Appeal, the impugned order has been challenged by the Appellant on several grounds. 6. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. 7. The record clearly shows that as per clause 23 (b) of the Agreement, the possession was to be handed over within 30 months, so the date of delivery was 17.11.2014. The record -4- also shows that the possession was delivered only on 14.01.2018 during the pendency of the Complaint before the State Commission. The deficiency on the part of the Appellant therefore is writ large on the face of it. The finding of the State Commission on this count does not suffer with any illegality or infirmity. 8. It is argued on behalf of the Appellant that the grant of interest @ 12% p.a. is towards higher side. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several pronouncements has granted interest much lesser. It is also argued that in the case of “DLF Homes Panchkula Limited vs. D. S. Dhanda etc. (2020) 16 SCC 318” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that if the compensation in the form of interest has been awarded then there is no need to grant compensation under different heads. It is argued on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant that the impugned order does not suffer with any illegality on this count as well. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments of parties. While in D. S. Dhanda’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly said that compensation under different heads ought not to be granted where interest is awarded, in “Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, -5- 2022 SCC Online SC 416”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “33. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9 per cent granted by the Commission is fair and just and we find no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by the consumer for enhancement of interest.” 9. In view of the above, while partly allowing the present Appeal, I issue following directions: (i) The Opposite Party is directed to execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the subject unit in favour of the Complainant on payment of registration and stamp duty and other miscellaneous charges by the Complainant; (ii) The Complainant shall make the payment of registration and stamp duty and the miscellaneous charges within three months from today and the sale deed shall be executed and got registered by the Opposite Party within three months thereafter; - The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation by way of interest @ 9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount to the Complainant from 17.11.2014 (promised date) till 14.01.2018 (the date when possession delivered) within two months from today, failing which the said amount shall carry penal interest @ 12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. for the entire period aforesaid, till realization;
- The Opposite Party is directed to pay litigation costs of ₹22,000/- to the Complainant.
10. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Complainant that pursuant to direction of this Commission dated 11.12.2018, the entire decretal amount is lying deposited with this Commission and requests that the decretal amount payable pursuant to this order -6- be ordered to be released to the Respondent/Complainant towards satisfaction of this order and the balance, if any, be ordered to be released to the Appellant. 11. Registry of this Commission is directed to release the due amount to the Complainant in terms of this order on her application and the balance, if any, be released to the Appellant. 12. With these directions, the present Appeal stands disposed of. | 
