ORAL
The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) whereby following directions were issued:
(i) Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.  The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s).
(ii) To pay compensation, by way of interest @ 12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), with effect from 25.04.2014, 23.02.2014, 03.02.2014 and 01.12.2013 till 21.09.2016, 27.04.2017, 14.01.2017 and 14.01.2017 respectively within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @ 15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.
-2-

Further for failure of Opposite Parties to deliver possession within 30 days from the date of making payment/submission of documents by the complainant(s) for such delay, beyond 30 days, compensation by way of interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount, till the date possession was delivered, shall be payable within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and failure shall entail penal interest @ 15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. till payment is made.

(iii) Pay compensation in the sum of ₹1,25,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and ₹35,000/-, as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.”

It is not disputed by the Appellant that the Respondent had booked the subject flat in their project called “DLF Valley, Panchkula”.  The possession of the said flat was to be delivered to the Respondent within 24 months of the agreement + 12 months of the force majeure, i.e. within three years.  The fact that the possession of the flat was not given by the Appellant to the Respondent within that stipulated period and there is a delay in delivery of possession stands proved by way of evidence before the State Commission.  The finding of the State Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant, therefore, cannot be found fault with.
It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently in Civil Appeal Nos.4910-4941 of 2019 DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D. S. Dhanda, Etc., 
-3-
taking note of its earlier decision in the case of DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Another Etc. Vs. Himanshu Arora And Another, Etc., Civil Appeal No.11097 of 2018 with CA No.11098-11138 of 2018 decided on 19.11.2018 and DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. Vs. Sushila Devi And Another, Civil Appeal No.2285-2330 of 2019, held that the compensation on account of such delay is payable by the Appellant after three years of the date of agreement, i.e., from the date when the default in delivery of possession had started and this compensation has been ascertained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at interest                        @ 9% p.a. on the deposited amount.  The compensation is payable for the period reckoned from three years after the agreement and ending at two months from the date, offer of possession was made to the Respondent.  It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case D. S. Dhanda’s case (supra) has held that such compensation has to be calculated              @ 9% p.a. and has also directed to pay the consolidated amount of ₹50,000/- on account of mental agony and litigation expenses to the Complainant in that case.  It is submitted that similar directions as issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Handa’s case (supra), can be passed in this case.
-4-
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent submits that it is a covered case and similar directions can be issued.
It is admitted by the parties that the possession of the house has been taken over by the Respondent.
In view of the submissions, following directions are issued:
(i) The impugned order is modified to the effect that the Appellant is liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. starting after three years of the date of agreement or from the date of transfer whichever is later till the period                    two months from the date of offer of possession;
(ii) The Appellant shall also pay a consolidated amount of ₹50,000/- to the Respondent on account of mental agony and litigation expenses.

It is brought to our notice that the Respondent is a subsequent purchaser.  In view of directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. S. Dhanda’s case (supra), it is directed that such amount shall be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent from the date of expiry of three years from the agreement or from the date of transfer whichever is later.
The payment shall be made within ten weeks.  The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.