1.       These 03 appeals no. 704 of 2021, no. 737 of 2021 and no. 738 of 2021 have been filed under section 51 of the Act 2019 in challenge to the common Order dated 10.02.2020 of the State Commission in complaints no. 475 of 2013, no. 524 of 2013 and no. 607 of 2013.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record.

These matters relate to builder-buyer disputes.

The State Commission vide its common Order dated 10.02.2020 disposed of the 03 complaints together. The operative portion of the State Commission’s Order is reproduced below:

2. For the sake of convenience, the details of the documents executed between the parties and the amount paid by the complainant(s) to the OP, which is admitted by the OP in its statement of accounts, in the aforesaid connected complaints are mentioned herein below:

1. Except from contending and arguing the averments and the objections made/raised in the complaint(s) and written statement, no other point was raised during the course, by any of the contesting parties in all the complaints.
2. In view of the above discussion, present is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Complainant(s) are legally entitled to seek refund of the money deposited by them with OP along with appropriate compensation. The complainant(s) have prayed for award of interest @ 18% p.a. However, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, I award compensation in the form of interest @ 12% p.a. from date of each deposit till realization. 

1)       The Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount deposited by the complainants as mentioned in Para No.28 of the order along with compensation in the form of interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of each deposit till realization.

2)       The Opposite Party shall also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation to complainant.

1. However, it is made clear that, in CC No.475/2013 and CC No.524/2013 complainants have availed loan facility from bank/financial institution, for making payment towards the said flat, they will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (complainant(s), respectively.
2. Certified copy of this order, be placed on connected complaints’ file, referred to above.
3. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be sent to the parties free of cost. Thereafter the file be consigned to record room. 

Review applications filed by the opposite party builder co. (the appellant herein) was dismissed by the State Commission vide its Order dated 19.03.2021.

Then the instant 03 appeals were preferred before this Commission by the builder co.

3.       These appeals, no. 704 of 2021, no. 737 of 2021 and no. 738 of 2021, have been filed with reported delay of 581, 597 and 597 days respectively.

However, in the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the builder co., to settle the matters on merit, and also considering the prevalent COVID-19 situation, as well as because it is not objected to by the learned counsel for the complainants (the respondents herein), the delay in the each of the appeals is condoned.

4.       Learned counsel for the builder co. submits that it is restricting and confining its instant 03 appeals only and only to the question of rate of interest on the amount(s) deposited by the complainants. The submission is that the builder co. is prepared to refund the respective amounts deposited by the complainants along with interest at a rate lower than the rate of 12% per annum awarded by the State Commission. Learned counsel also submits that the builder co. is not agitating the refund of the deposited amounts or payment of the cost of litigation awarded by the State Commission.

5.       On the question of rate of interest, learned counsel for the builder co. submits that rate of interest of 12% per annum on the deposited amounts awarded by the State Commission is on the higher side and is unreasonable and unjustified. Learned counsel further submits that the builder co. is prepared to pay a rate of interest of 9% per annum to the complainant(s) who have not availed of home loan and a rate of interest of 10.25% per annum to the complainant(s) who have availed of home loan from any bank / financial institution.

6.       In rebuttal learned counsel for the complainants submits that the rate of interest of 12% per annum awarded by the State Commission is just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the present cases. Learned counsel further submits that in similar matters, in similar facts and circumstances, in respect of the same subject project and the same builder co., in which rate of interest of 12% per annum on the deposited amounts of the concerned complainants was awarded by the State Commission, appeals filed by the builder co. were dismissed by a coordinate bench of this Commission. He draws attention to the Order dated 23.12.2019 vide which appeals no. 1516 to no. 1519 of 2019 were dismissed by a coordinate bench of this Commission. The submission is that in similar matters the rate of interest of 12% per annum has been found just and equitable by the State Commission and the same has also been sustained by a coordinate bench of this Commission, as such there is hardly any justification or ground to reduce the rate of interest in the instant 03 cases being argued today.

7.       We may note that there can be no two opinions that the deposited amount(s) have to be refunded in full when possession of the subject unit(s) is not duly offered / given (along with inter alia completion-cum-occupancy certificate) within the agreed period (or within a reasonable period thence, i.e. within a period which a reasonable man will not normally agitate). Compensation in the form of interest thereon should be fair and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case(s), just as cost of litigation should be reasonable.

8.       In the present cases, refund of the deposited amount and payment of cost of litigation is not being agitated or argued by the builder co.

9.       In respect of rate of interest, which is the sole point in appeal, the State Commission has awarded rate of interest of 12% per annum on the deposited amount. It has not awarded any lumpsum compensation in addition.

The nature and terms of the Order as has been passed by the State Commission is in consonance with and within the four corners of law and appears just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the present cases. We do not perceive any arbitrariness or unreasonableness or miscarriage of justice having been occasioned by the same or on the basis of which the impugned Order may be perceived to be perverse. We also do not perceive any elements of disproportion in the Order and do not see any persuasive or good ground to interfere in the same.

10.     What is to be seen in these matters is as to what shall be the scales of equity and what shall decide the parameters of conscionable justice. In fact such a matter is in the realm of discretion of the concerned presiding forum, which must exercise the same judiciously and reasonably, and there can be no straight-jacketed formula that goes towards universal application. It is always possible in many such matters where a higher forum may tend to have a slightly deviating view about the rate of interest but in our considered opinion this in itself alone would not constitute to be a good ground to interfere in the judicious discretion exercised by the lower forum. In the matters of judicious discretion we are loath to unnecessarily interfere in the discretion already exercised by the lower forum and substitute it with our own, though of course in the matters where we find that the use or exercise of discretion has not been judiciously undertaken or where we find any elements of capricious and whimsical exercise or of patent arbitrariness or unreasonableness or of visible lack of application of mind, we do not hesitate to interfere and do pass the corrective orders necessarily. Similarly, where we find elements of absurdity in the order, we do not hesitate to set the same right. But just because a different view is also possible, it alone is not by itself considered a persuasive ground to substitute the order passed by the lower forum by our own alternate opinion. In the present matter at hand, however, we must but clarify that even we do not see any reason or feel inclined to take a different view of the matter than what has been taken by the State Commission.

11.     The appeals, argued by the appellant builder co. on the limited question of rate of interest on the amounts deposited by the complainant, are bereft of worth and must fail.

12.     The appeals no. 704 of 2021, no. 737 of 2021 and no. 738 of 2021 stand dismissed.

The common Order dated 10.02.2020 of the State Commission shall be complied with forthwith.

13.     Learned counsel for the complainants informs that the Order of the State Commission has already been put to execution.

14.     Accordingly, if the Order is not complied with forthwith, the execution proceedings shall be taken to their lawful culmination by the State Commission.          

15.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeals and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.