AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.), MEMBER 1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No.1506 of 2018 wherein the State Commission allowed the Complaint. 2. There was 46 days delay in filing the FA. For reasons stated in IA/15583/2018 seeking the condonation of delay, the delay in filing the present FA is condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was allotted Flat No. E-5/502 vide Allotment Letter dated 09.06.2012 by the Appellant measuring 128.20 Sq Mtrs in the project named ‘Parsvnath Exotica’, in Village Arthala, District Ghaziabad, U.P. Despite paying Rs.23,55,896/- against the total consideration of Rs.45,70,560/-, the OP failed to deliver possession within 30 months. Visits to the project site revealed that the Opposite Party will not be able to deliver possession of the plot in question, even in the next two to three years, for want of development works. 4. Being concerned, the Complainant made number of requests to OP to complete development work at the project site and deliver the possession of the said plot. However, no positive steps were taken. Under these circumstances, the Complainant forwarded a legal notice dated 26.09.2014 to refund the amount paid by the Complainant along with interest. It invoked no response. As the OP’s actions amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the learned State Commission, Delhi seeking the following reliefs: “i) to immediately refund to complainant the entire amount of her deposits to the tune of Rs.23,55,896/- (Twenty Three Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Six only) with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of each and every deposit till its actual payment/refund; and. ii) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh only) as compensation for having caused huge financial losses besides physical and mental harassment, hardship and humiliation to the complainant during last 8 years; and iii) to pay the legal and other expenses/cost of the present proceedings to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. Any other order(s) or relief(s), which the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of complainant and against the opposite party.” 5. In the reply filed by the OP, many preliminary objections were raised. It was averred that the Complainant did not fall within the definition of "Consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as the purchase of the unit was for investment. Further, the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission was challenged. The remaining averments were denied being false and baseless. The Appellant prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed in the case with costs. 6. The State Commission vide Order dated 08.05.2018, allowed the Complaint and directed the Appellant/ OP as under:- To refund the amount Rs.23,55,896/- to the complainant, along with interest @12% p.a., from the date of deposit till the date of refund. Award of interest at the said rate would take care of compensation as well as cost of litigation also. 7. The learned Counsels for both the parties submitted in their arguments that they wish to rely on the pleadings already filed in the matter. Vide Order dated 11.11.2019 passed by this Commission, the facts of the case entail limited questions of law in the form of the rate of interest payable and scope for payment of compensation, when interest is already granted. It is also admitted position that the Respondent/Complainant has already received an amount of Rs.25 Lakh from the Appellant/Opposite Party in terms of the Order dated 11.11.2019. 8. The learned counsel for the Appellant reiterated the contentions made in the Appeal. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “DLF Homes Panchkula Limited vs. D. S. Dhanda etc. (2020) 16 SCC 318 and Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.6239/2019 decided on 24.08.2020”. He submitted that since interest has been awarded on the amount due, the direction regarding grant of compensation may be quashed. He further submitted that his case is limited to the extent of compensation awarded by the State Commission. 9. The learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the issues raised in the Complainant’s pleadings in the matter and argued in support of the impugned order passed by the State Commission. He asserted that the said Order is fair and reasonable and be upheld. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parsvnath Exotica Resident’s Association and Anr., Civil Appeal No.5335 of 2019 decided on 29.11.2019. 10. We have examined the pleadings and the associated documents on record and thoughtfully considered the detailed arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties. 11. As regards the rate of interest and the scope for payment of compensation in such matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, in Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019 decided on 7.4.2022 held that:- “We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the Order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit. We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interest shall be payable from the dates of such deposits. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, in CA Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 has held that multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable. Therefore, compensation for mental agony and harassment is untenable. 13. In view of the facts of the case, the submissions made by the learned Counsels for both the parties and the established precedents by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter, the impugned Order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the learned State Commission, Delhi is modified with the following directions: - ORDER - The Appellant shall refund Rs.23,55,896/- to the Complainant/ Respondent, along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment, after adjusting the amount already paid by the Appellant/OP to the Respondent/ Complainant, within a period of one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay beyond one month, the amount payable shall carry interest @ 12% per annum for such period beyond one month, till the realization of the entire amount.
- The Appellant shall pay cost of litigation quantified as Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant/Respondent, within one month from the date of this order.
14. Consequently, the instant First Appeal No. FA/1506/2018 stands disposed of. All the pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. The statutory amount deposited by the Appellant, if any, be refunded after due compliance of this order. | 
