IN F.A. No. 370 of 2020

For the Appellant                       : Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Advocate with

                                                  Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate

For the Respondent                   : Mr. Ravi Kant Jain, Advocate

IN F.A. No. 371 of 2020

For the Appellant                       : Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Advocate with

                                                  Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate

For the Respondent                   : Mr. Rajinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate with

                                                  Respondent in person

                                                  (in physical hearing)

IN F.A. No. 372 of 2020

For the Appellant                       : Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Advocate with

                                                  Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate

For the Respondent                   : Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate

  (through video conferencing)

                                                  Respondent in person

                                                  (in physical hearing)

IN F.A. No. 695 of 2020

For the Appellant                       : Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Advocate with

                                                  Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate

For the Respondent                   : Ms. Vriti Gujral, Advocate for

  Ms. Pallavi Singh, Advocate

Dated : 28.07.2021

ORDER

Taken up through video conferencing.

F.A. No. 370 of 2020, F.A. No. 371 of 2020, F.A. No. 372 of 2020 and F.A. No. 695 of 2020:   

Similar facts and same questions of law are involved in these four first appeals. As such, they are being disposed of vide this common order.

F.A. No. 370 of 2020:

1.       This appeal has been filed under Section 21(a)(ii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 30.08.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2019 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, with self-admitted delay of 162 days.

2.       The State Commission made the following Award vide its impugned Order of 30.08.2019:

18. Sequel to the above, the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed and opposite parties are directed as under:-

 i) to hand over the possession of the plot, in question, within a period of one month along with all the basic amenities as committed by the opposite parties, subject to the balance sale consideration, if any, without any interest;

ii) to pay interest at the rate 12% per annum on the deposited amount i.e. Rs.50,56,224/- from the stipulated date of possession i.e. 10.11.2017 till the handing over the possession,

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

F.A. No. 371 of 2020:

3.       This appeal has been filed under Section 21(a)(ii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 30.09.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 318 of 2019 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, with self-admitted delay of 117 days.

4.       The State Commission made the following Award vide its impugned Order of 30.09.2019:

19. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i)          to deliver possession of the plot allotted to the complainant, complete in all respects, along with all the agreed basic amenities and Completion / Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority and to execute Sale Deed / Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant;

ii)         to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 12% on the amount deposited by the complainant with effect from the stipulated date for delivery of possession i.e. 13/18.01.2018 till actual and physical delivery of possession of the plot, ordered above; and

iii)        to pay composite litigation expenses and compensation for the mental and harassment suffered by the complainant to the tune of ₹55,000/-.

F.A. No. 372 of 2020:

5.       This appeal has been filed under Section 21(a)(ii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 14.10.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 489 of 2019 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, with self-admitted delay of 101 days.

6.       The State Commission made the following Award vide its impugned Order of 14.10.2019:

19. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i)          to deliver possession of the plot to the complainants, complete in all respects, along with all the agreed basic amenities and Completion / Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority and to execute Sale Deed / Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainants, subject to payment of balance sale consideration without any interest or penalty;

ii)         to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 12% on the amount deposited by the complainants with effect from the stipulated date for delivery of possession i.e. 26/28.12.2017 till actual and physical delivery of possession of the plot, ordered above; and

iii)        to pay composite litigation expenses and compensation for the mental and harassment suffered by the complainants to the tune of ₹55,000/-. The balance sale consideration payable by the complainants shall be adjusted towards the aforesaid liability of the opposite parties.

F.A. No. 695 of 2020:

7.       This appeal has been filed under Section 21(a)(ii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 02.12.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 596 of 2019 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, with self-admitted delay of 235 days.

8.       The State Commission made the following Award vide its impugned Order of 02.12.2019:

19. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i)          to deliver possession of the plot to the complainant, complete in all respects, along with all the agreed basic amenities and Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority and to execute Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant, subject to payment of balance sale consideration, if any, without any interest or penalty;

 ii)        to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 8% on the amount deposited by the complainant with effect from the stipulated date for delivery of possession i.e. 17.11.2017 till actual and physical delivery of possession of the plot, ordered above; and

iii)        to pay composite litigation expenses and compensation for the mental and harassment suffered by the complainant to the tune of ₹30,000/-. The balance sale consideration payable by the complainant, if any, shall be adjusted towards the aforesaid liability of the opposite parties.

F.A. No. 370 of 2020, F.A. No. 371 of 2020, F.A. No. 372 of 2020 and F.A. No. 695 of 2020:

9.       Heard the learned counsel present. Perused the record.

10.     Considering the reasons stated in the respective applications for condonation of delay, in the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the appellant development authority, to settle the matter on merit, the respective delay in filing these four appeals is condoned.

11.     In the each of the four cases, the State Commission has made its Award under three heads, one, delivery of possession of the subject plot, two, compensation for delay in delivery by way of interest on the amount deposited by the complainant with the development authority, and, three, lumpsum compensation for the loss and injury and cost of litigation.

12.     The short point in dispute is fundamentally apropos two above i.e. the rate of interest on the amount deposited by the complainant with the development authority. It may be seen that awarding interest on the amount deposited is essentially a method of computing the compensation for delay in delivery of possession. It may also be seen that the interest has been awarded from the stipulated date of delivery of possession till the date of actual delivery.

13.     The learned counsel for the development authority submits that rate of interest of 7% per annum would be appropriate, while the learned counsel present for the complainants submit that rate of interest of 12% per annum should be appropriate.

14.     We are of the considered opinion that, in the facts and specificities of the matters at hand, rate of interest of 12% per annum on 25% of the total consideration amount and rate of interest of 10% per annum on rest of the amount (over and above 25% of the total consideration amount) deposited by the complainants with the development authority, from the respective stipulated dates of delivery of possession till the respective dates of actual delivery of possession, is reasonable and equitable, and would meet the ends of justice.

The respective Awards made by the State Commission are modified to this extent.

In the cases where execution proceedings are pending, the State Commission is requested to conduct the respective proceedings in consonance with the respective Awards as modified afore by this Commission.

So disposed.

15.   The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in these four appeals and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.