ORDER (ORAL) Mr. B. Mund, Authorised Representative of the Appellant is present. 2. Learned Counsels for the parties have submitted that the parties have settled their dispute and it is agreed that the rate of interest @ 18% p.a., which had been granted by the State Commission, shall be reduced to 9% p.a. and in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “DLF Homes Panchkula Limited vs. D. S. Dhanda etc. (2020) 16 SCC -2- 318”, the order of the State Commission for grant of compensation under different heads shall be set aside. It is prayed that necessary directions to this effect be made in the impugned order. 3. Heard. The admitted facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant had booked an apartment No.1101 on 11dth Floor on Gold Palm-B Tower with super area 2435 sq. ft. and the Builder Buyer Agreement was entered into between the parties on 04.06.2009. As per this BBA, the possession was to be handed over within 36 months (including grace period) but since it could not be done, the Complaint was filed before the State Commission. 4. The written version was filed by the Appellant. Parties led their evidences before the State Commission. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, the State Commission reached to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant and issued the following directions: “11 ……. In view of the foregoing discussion, complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to pay to the complainant as under:- - To refund the amount of ₹19,43,738/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of its realization.
-3- - To pay compensation to the tune of ₹3,00,000/- for harassment, inconvenience, sadness, anxiety and mental agony caused to the complainant.
- Litigation charges to the tune of ₹1,00,000/-.
OP to pay to the complainant the abovesaid amounts within a period of 60 days from today failing which the same shall carry interest @ 24$ per annum. Complaint is accordingly disposed of” 5. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Appellant has not challenged the finding of the State Commission on the issue of deficiency in service in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Parties have agreed that the rate of interest on the deposited amount be reduced to 9% p.a. and only the litigation charges as awarded by the State Commission be maintained. 6. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, following directions are issued: - The Appellant is directed to refund the amount of ₹19,43,738/- along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till its realization;
- The litigation charges to the tune of ₹1 Lakh shall also be paid.”
7. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that pursuant to the direction of this Commission dated 09.11.2017, the Appellant had deposited 50% of the awarded amount along with -4- interest @ 18% p.a. It is requested that the Respondent/Complainant can apply for the release of the deposited amount pursuant to this order and the balance amount, if any, should be released to the Appellant. 8. In view of this submission, the State Commission is directed to release the amount payable to the Respondent/Complainant pursuant to this order on the application and on issue of notice to the Appellant, and the balance amount, if any, shall be released to the Appellant. 9. In case the amount lying deposited with the State Commission is insufficient to satisfy the execution of this order, the Respondent/Complainant is free to file execution. 10. With these directions, the present Appeal stands disposed of. | 
