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) To refund the amounts of ₹46,86,826.00, along with simple interest @ 13% p.a. to the respective complainant(s), with effect from 22.01.2013 for the amount(s) paid uptill 22.01.2013 by the previous allotee and from the respective dates of deposits, in respect of payments made w.e.f. 22.01.2013 onwards, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall pay  the aforesaid amounts along with simple interest @ 15% per annum, instead of 13% per annum, from the date of default i.e. after expiry of 45 days period, till actual payment.

-2-

(ii) To pay an amount of ₹75,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment and deficiency in service and ₹35,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant(s), within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which the Opposite Parties shall pay the aforesaid amount along with simple interest @ 13% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment.”

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 by learned Counsel for the Appellant that recently 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., where the refund had been ordered by the State Commission, the order of the State Commission is modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4942-4945 of 2019
-3-
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sudesh Goyal, Etc. and the rate of interest was reduced from 15% to 9% from the date of deposit till the date of refund and the cost awarded by the State Commission to the tune of ₹35,000/- is maintained.  It is submitted that the Respondent is a subsequent purchaser. In view of the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Devi’s case (supra), the interest is payable to the Respondent from the date the Respondent purchased the subject flat and stepped into the shoes of the original allottee and from the date on which he made any payment subsequent to it.  Reliance is placed on the findings of the case of Sushila Devis’’ case (supra) which is as under:
9. When the present appeals were taken up, all the parties agreed that these appeals be disposed of in terms with the directions issued by this Court in Himanshu Arora’s case. We, therefore, directed the Developer to file a Chart in consultation with all the complainants and indicate what modalities be adopted. After such Chart was filed, it was agreed that wherever compensation was to be awarded, it should be in the form of interest @ 9% and the governing principles be as under:-

(a) In all Refund cases, the award of interest @ 9% would be payable in respect of deposits from the day they were made till the date of refund.
(b) In cases where, upon transfer, a subsequent purchaser had stepped into the shoes of the original allottee and had prayed for Refund, the reckoning date for computing the interest be from the date of his transfer in respect of all the amounts that were deposited by the original allottee
-4-
and if any subsequent deposits were made by the transferee, from the dates of such deposits;
(c) In cases where Possession was sought, the period available to the Developer under the agreement being three years (that is to say original period of two years which was extendable, at the option of the Developer, by further period of one year) ought not to be computed while calculating compensation in the form of interest. Therefore, the period to be reckoned shall be after expiry of three years from the date of agreement and in respect of such period the compensation shall be at the same rate of 9%.
(d) In Possession cases, if there was any transfer and the transferee had stepped into the shoes of the original allottee, the compensation shall be paid from the date of expiry of three years from the agreement as aforesaid or from the date of transfer, whichever is later.
It is prayed that similar directions be also issued in the present Appeal since this case is squarely covered by the said case.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that he has no objection if the similar order is passed. 
Heard.  Since it is a covered case, the impugned order is modified and the following directions are issued:
(i) The interest shall be paid on the deposited amount to the Respondent @ 9% p.a. from the date of his transfer in respect of all the amounts that were deposited by the original allottee and if any subsequent deposits were made by the transferee, from the date of such deposits;

(ii) Cost of ₹35,000/- shall also be paid.

-5-
The payment shall be made within ten weeks.  The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.