JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

2. The facts and questions involved in these Appeals are virtually  identical except for minor variations in the dates, consideration amounts and Flat numbers. Therefore these Appeals are being disposed off by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, FA/631/2018 is treated as the lead case, and the facts enumerated hereinafter are extracted from this Complaint, although it has been the contention of the Town Improvement Trust that the Complainant/ Cross Appellant in this case was not entitled to any relief, as she had   taken possession of the Apartment allotted to her, which contention was vehemently disputed from the Complainant’s side.  More details on this aspect will be considered at an appropriate stage later in this judgment.

3. The factual background, in brief is that in the year 2010, the Appellant/Improvement Trust initiated a process for the allotment of flats in Manmohan Kalia Enclave, Transport Nagar, Goniana Road, Bathinda. In its promotional Brochure, the Appellant offered 96 multi-storeyed apartments and 2 penthouses to the general public. The amenities included walled community living, earthquake-resistant structure, convenient shopping, and a community centre etc. The flats, categorized as 3BHK with a car garage, were to be delivered within 2.5 years. The Complainant Anita Rani applied for an HIG Flat by filing Application No. 133 and deposited Rs. 2,60,000/- along with the application. Following a successful draw of lots, she was allotted Flat No. A-1 on the first floor, for a total value of Rs. 26,00,000/-. An additional cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- was charged for stilt parking, along with a cess at 4% amounting to Rs. 1,04,000/-. The total sale consideration, including ancillary expenses, amounted to Rs. 31,15,024/-. As per the terms and conditions outlined in the brochure and allotment letter, the Complainant made the requisite payments. However, the Appellant failed to provide possession within the stipulated period of 2.5 years, as promised, and construction work was still ongoing in the year 2014. Essential amenities such as water supply, drainage, sewage, street lighting, and electricity were conspicuously absent. The Appellant, in violation of the original terms, charged Rs. 1,00,000/- for stilt parking from the Flat owners despite insufficient parking space for all the occupants. The Appellant's brochure and allotment letter included clauses stating that penal interest would be charged for delayed payments, and in case of any delay beyond 6 months, the total amount paid till then could be forfeited. The Complainant, on account of the failure of the Appellant/Improvement Trust to deliver possession beyond the promised date, filed her complaint before the District Forum, Bathinda, in August 2014. The District Forum partially allowed the complaint, directing the Appellant to pay Rs. 10,000/- as monthly rent to the Allottee(s) due to the delay. Both the Complainant and Appellant filed their Appeals before the State Commission, but the same were dismissed in November 2016. 

4. It may be mentioned that after dismissal of the Appeals filed by both parties following the Order of the District Forum in the original Complaint directing the Improvement Trust to pay Rs. 10,000/- as monthly rent to the Allottee(s) due to the delay, the Appellant/Improvement Trust challenged the dismissal of its Appeals by the State Commission by filing Revision Petition Nos. 96 to 109 of 2017 in this Commission, but even those Revision Petitions were dismissed in limini without even issuing Notices to the concerned Complainants/Respondents on 21.4.2017. In its aforesaid Order dated 21.4.2017, this Commission was in full agreement with the decisions of both the Ld. Fora below that no valid possession had been offered by the Appellant Trust to the Allottees  inspite of such long passage of time, on account of which there was no justification to interfere with the decisions of Ld. District Forum and Ld. State Commission. However, this Commission still granted an opportunity to the Appellant Trust to offer possession to the various Complainants within 02 months after ensuring that the basic facilities and amenities as contemplated under the Scheme were available. The relevant extracts from the decision of this Commission in RP Nos. 96 to 109 of 2017 are set out as below – 

“9. Nevertheless, as it is pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Trust that all the basic amenities in the -20- Complex are available and many similarly situated allottees have already been put in possession and are residing in their respective flats, we direct that if the Trust offers possession of the flats in question to the Complainants, in the condition these were to be made available under the Scheme, with basic amenities, like sewerage, drinking water supply, lifts etc., if these were to be provided, the Trust shall not be liable to pay to the Complainants/allottees the compensation, as directed by the lower Fora, after the expiry of two months of the date of the said offer. This direction is being issued without notice to the Complainants in order to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to them and additional financial burden on the Trust in bearing their travel and allied expenses. 

 

10. Resultantly, there being no Jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, on both the aforenoted grounds canvassed before us, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly.”

5. After the aforesaid Revision Petition Nos. 96 to 109 of 2017  filed on behalf of the Appellant/ Improvement Trust had been dismissed by this Commission on 21.4.2017, without even issuing any Notice to the Complainants, the Complainant(s) filed their fresh Complaints in the Ld. State Commission between 3.10.2017 to 28.11.2017, which were since allowed by the Ld. State Commission vide the impugned Order. 

6. The Ld. State Commission vide the impugned Order dated 15.2.2018 allowed the Complaint, and after having considered the material transpiring before it, including a letter dated 13.6.2017 issued on behalf of the Appellant/Improvement Trust to the Additional Chief Secretary, Local Government Department, Punjab, it was of the view that the Flats allotted to the Complainant, and the other Allottees were far from complete on account of which the Complainants could not be made to wait indefinitely for getting possession of the same in a proper habitable condition and in accordance with the various amenities promised in the brochure.  The relevant extracts from the Order of the Ld. State Commission in this regard are set out as below –

“11…………………….A perusal of the above reveals that upto 13.6.2017 the lifts were not functioning properly due to fluctuation in the voltage. The work of installation of S.T.P. is being started shortly after taking land from the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda in the Dairy Scheme itself. A further perusal of the same reveals that work of firefighting is complete upto 70% and approximately 60% work of rainwater harvesting is also complete. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that all the facilities have been provided at the spot even in the month of June 2017 much after the passing of the judgment dated 21.4.2017 by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petitions No.96 to 109 of 2017 (Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda v. Kapil Bansal and others), a copy of which has been annexed as Ex.OP-1. 

12. Even the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Self Government, Punjab Municipal Bhawan, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh, vide order dated 4.5.2017, Ex.C-19, suspended a number of officers/officials of the opposite party; named in that order, for irregularities in the construction of the flats; over-sighting the condition of the construction of the flats; issuance of Completion Certificate of the flats and for carrying out the draw of lots without doing the demand survey. Therefore, from a perusal of the order, Ex.C19, it becomes clear that the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Self-Government itself admits that there are irregularities in the construction of the flats and the same is incomplete even upto 4.5.2017. 

13. A perusal of sub-clause 9 of the amendment made in Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, notified vide No.GSR46/PA-4/1922/S.73/Amd.(6)/2016 dated 28.6.2016, reproduced above, reveals that in case the Trust fails to handover the possession of the sold/allotted plot/property to the buyer/allottee within the stipulated time mentioned in the allotment letter because of some court case or otherwise, it shall communicate the same within a period of 90-days of the allotment/auction to the said buyer/allottee, who may make an application for taking his earnest money or any other amount deposited with the Trust back within a period of three months from the date of such intimation. In the present case the complaint itself is a notice to the Trust that the applicant is asking for the refund of the amount deposited by her and, as such, the opposite party is required to refund the same as it is unable to deliver the possession on the date of notification i.e. 28.6.2016. Otherwise also, this Commission in FA No.452 of 2016 decided on 24.11.2016 (Town Improvement Trust v. Anita Rani) has already recorded a finding that there were deficiencies and the flats were incomplete and that the complainant was not bound to take possession in such a case. Rather in those circumstances, the complainant had sought compensation for the delay in possession which has been awarded at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month by the District Forum, Bathinda which has been upheld by this Commission and further upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission in the above mentioned Revision Petitions, vide Ex.OP1. Moreover, no completion or partial completion certificate in respect of the flats in question has been placed on record by the opposite party. In view of the above factual position it is held that the flats are still incomplete in many respects even after the lapse of more than 7 years and are not in habitable condition. So far as the delivery of possession of the flat to the complainant, vide letter dated 21.5.2015 is concerned, the same is only paper possession and as such, it cannot be said that possession of the flat has been actually delivered to the complainant. The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period for the delivery of possession of the flat in-spite of making full payment towards the price of the flat. This act and conduct of the opposite party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on its part. No purpose would be served by ordering delivery of possession of the flat to the complainant and as such, the complainant is held entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by her.

…..15. In view of our above discussion, this complaint is allowed and the following directions are issued to the opposite party:- 

i) to refund the amount of ₹31,15,024/- deposited by the complainant; and 

ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.

16. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order…”  

 

7. For the remaining 11 Complainants/Cross Appellants, the Ld. State Commission passed virtually identical Orders directing refund of the amounts paid by those Complainants individually and the identical amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses to each of them.

8. This Commission has heard the Ld. Counsel for both the Appellants and the Respondents, and perused the material available on record.

9. It has been argued on behalf of the Appellant/ Improvement Trust that the complaint is hit by the Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that every case shall include whole of the claim to which the complainant is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action. However a complainant may relinquish any portion of his claim, and where a complainant omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished, and where a person is entitled to more than one relief in respect of same cause of action, he may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for such relief. Therefore the second complaint filed by the Respondent is not maintainable. The second complaint seeking refund of the amount was thus barred under Order II, Rule 2; That the Appellant in compliance to the directions issued by this Hon’ble Commission, had requested the Allottees vide letter dated 30.05.2017 to visit the site and apprise it regarding any other works to be completed or for the rectification of any irregularity to their satisfaction, and subsequently vide letter dated 13.06.2017, the status of completion of Flats was sent to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Local Deptt., Punjab, Chandigarh and it categorically mentioned that the suggestions/irregularities pointed out by the Deptt. have been rectified by the concerned contractors; That the Flats are of earthquake resistant structure, and the designs were sent for vetting to the Thapar University, Patiala and the construction is done as per the designs; That the Appellant had issued letter dated 04.10.2017 to the Allottees for the possession of the respective flats, apprising them also that the status report has been sent to the Government vide letter dated 13.06.2017. The Allottees neither filed any objections nor made any protest with regard to the letter dated 04.10.2017; That the State Commission wrongly interpreted the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 dated 30.06.2016. The amendment dated 30.06.2016 regarding the allotment of flats and refund by the Improvement Trust on its failure to give possession on time is not applicable upon the Complainant as the Flat was allotted on 27.04.2011 and the amendment is not retrospectively applicable for the Complainants; That as per Clause 10 of the brochure, it was clearly mentioned that the Allottee shall be entitled to take possession of the Flat in semi-finished condition after completing all the formalities, and paying all the dues up to that date, and that the Flat will be offered on “as is and where is” basis after obtaining possession certificate from the Trust Engineer; That the State Commission has wrongly held that after a lapse of more than 7 years, the Flats in question are still incomplete in many respects, the said finding of the State Commission is based on a misreading of the evidence. The status report dated 13.06.2017, and the possession letter dated 04.10.2017 have been ignored, while reliance was placed upon the letter issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer, Local Government, by the State Commission, but the compliance report dated 13.06.2017 submitted pursuant to the said letter to the Government, which was also accepted by the Government has not been considered;  That the State Commission has wrongly recorded that the work of installation of STP is to be started shortly after taking land from Municipal Corporation, Bathinda whereas vide Clause VI of letter dated 13.06.2017, it has been mentioned that the sewer of the Flats has been connected with the main line of sewer scheme and that it is working smoothly at the spot and that the STP work shall be commenced by the Municipal Corporation after taking land from the Trust for this reason;   That this Hon’ble Commission vide Order dated 29.05.2018 had appointed an independent Expert Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Addl. Director General, CPWD, New Delhi as Court Commissioner to visit the site, inspect the entire project, internally and externally, and then submit his report. The Court Commissioner submitted his report on all the five issues to the effect that the Flats have been constructed as per the specifications in the layout drawing and the brochure of the flats, the construction material and other accessories are as per BIS standards and executed as per PWD (B&R) specifications, the construction materials were tested and results were found satisfactory at the time of construction, and the structure design was vetted from the Thapar University, Patiala; Therefore it has been prayed that the impugned Order may be set aside, and the Appeals by the Appellant be allowed in the interest of justice.

10. In the Cross Appeals filed on behalf of the Complainants, their grievance is that no delay compensation whatsoever has been granted to them while ordering refund of the amounts paid by them to the Opposite Party/ Town Improvement Trust, and the composite compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 50,000/- awarded to each of them, is grossly insufficient in the given facts and circumstances, as they had to undergo tremendous financial loss and strain on account of blockage of their money by the Improvement Trust for a period running into several years.

11. Before proceeding any further on the merits of the case, it would be apposite to consider the submission raised on behalf of the Appellant/ Improvement Trust that the Complainant/ Cross Appellant in FA No. 866 of 2018 namely Ms. Anita Rani  is not entitled to any relief whatsoever, as she had been put in possession of the Flat allotted to her.  It may be mentioned that such submission was made on behalf of the Improvement Trust on 18.6.2024 before this Commission, which was recorded in the Order passed on that date in the following manner –

“Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submits that apart from the other Legal grounds raised from its side in challenging the maintainability of the second Complaint filed by the Respondents/Appellants, it was also the case of the Improvement Trust that several of those Complainants had already taken possession of their respective units and had been residing therein. Ld. Counsel further submits that at least in case of the Respondent/Complainant in FA/631/2018, she had definitely been delivered possession of her unit and resided there for a substantial period of time.”

12. In view of the aforesaid submission, the Appellant/Improvement Trust was directed to file an Affidavit specifying the names of those Complainants/Respondents with the dates on which they were put in possession of their respective Units, alongwith documents showing delivery of possession, and copies of the Written Version/ Reply filed on behalf of the Improvement Trust, in the first round of litigation, to show that such plea had been raised from its side at that stage itself.

13. In compliance of the aforesaid direction of this Commission, an IA No. 10260 of 2024 was filed on behalf of the Improvement Trust, for placing the requisite Affidavit and documents on record which was allowed on 4.7.2024.  Perusal of the said Affidavit sworn by Mr. Jeewan Bansal, Executive Officer in the Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda, Punjab, goes to show that only the Complainant- Anita Rani was allegedly offered possession on 25.5.2015, which she had also allegedly taken on the same date, after which she applied for regular water and sewerage connections on 2.12.2015, and allegedly got the electricity connection from the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. On 13.6.2016.  It was further stated in the Affidavit, that in the earlier Complaint filed by the said Complainant-Anita Rani, such averments were not brought on record since the reply and Evidence from the side of the Improvement Trust had already been filed prior to the alleged date of possession i.e. 21.5.2015.

14. Having carefully considered the contents of the aforesaid Affidavit and the documents attached thereto, this Commission is of the view that no reliance can be placed upon the same at this stage for various reasons.  First of all, it has transpired that the alleged possession was offered to and taken by the Complainant/Cross Appellant-Anita Rani, although it was the claim of the Improvement Trust made on 18.6.2024, that ‘several’ Allottees had already been put in possession in their respective dwelling Units.  Now, Annexure A-1 happens to be a Copy of the correspondence between the Appellant and the Complainant, Anita Rani, vide which she had taken possession of the flat allotted to her. Annexure A-2 is a Copy of a subsequent letter dated 20.11.2015, in which it has been mentioned inter alia that a letter has been issued to the PSPCL for releasing electricity connection to the Complainant’s Flat. Annexure A-3 happens to be letter issued by the Complainant to the Improvement Trust dated 02.12.2015, in which for regularisation of the water/sewerage connection. Annexure A-4 is a Copy of the Electricity Bill to show existence of her electricity connection as on 11.06.2018, and Annexure A-5, is a Copy of the Affidavit in Evidence filed on behalf of the Appellant before the Ld. District Forum dated 09.03.2015, which itself is prior to the date of alleged possession by the Complainant.

15. Copy of the Written Version filed by the Improvement Trust before the District Forum which was also required vide Order dated 18.06.2024 has however not been filed. Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Complainants/Respondents submitted that the documents relied upon by the Appellants only indicate a paper possession which his client was forced to accept since she was under severe financial constraints and pressure of HDFC Bank, which was mentioned by her in her letter dated 14.03.2016 address to the Improvement Trust, which is Annexure A-2 in the cross appeal filed by the Respondent.  Ld. Senior Counsel has also drawn attention to Clause 10 of the Original Brochure from which it is seen that the possession was to be handed over “after obtaining possession certificate from the Trust Engineer”.  It was also in the same Clause that no Sale Deed could be executed till the entire payment is made.  Now the Completion Certificate of the Trust Engineer was itself issued sometime in the year 2016, which would go to show that the alleged possession accepted by the Complainant prior to that would have certainly been under compelling circumstances and in absence of the various maintenance and services which were mentioned in detail in her letter dated 14.03.2016. Furthermore according to the Complainant/ Respondent, the very fact that no Sale Deed was executed in favour of the Complainant inspite of the alleged delivery of possession to her in itself goes to show that the facilities promised were yet to be fulfilled, and it was only a paper possession which she was constrained to show under pressure of her Bank.

16. At any rate the Ld. District Forum in its Order also did not consider these aspects, which were also not raised before the Ld. State Commission in Appeal in the first instance.

17. While the Improvement Trust has sought to place great reliance on the report of Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Director General of the CPWD, who was appointed a Court Commissioner in this case for verifying the status of the Flats concerned, to which he reported on 7.9.2018 that the same had been “constructed as per the specifications in the layout drawing and brochure;  that the construction material and other accessories used in construction of the Flats were as per BIS standards and construction was executed as per PWD B&R specifications; that the Flats constructed being semi-furnished are in habitable condition; that the basic facilities including sewerage, therefore drinking water, electricity supply and other allied services are provided, and also that fire safety measures have similarly been provided.”  But after a careful consideration of the Commissioner’s Report, this Commission is of the opinion that not much reliance can be placed upon the same, since it is manifestly cryptic and vague.  It does not specify the names /details of the construction material used which he found to be satisfactory. The Report was also not accompanied by any Field Notes whatsoever, nor any photographs to support the information noted by the Ld. Commissioner. Further doubt has been raised on the credibility of the Report on behalf of the Complainants/ Cross Appellants who have also contended that the Court Commissioner, Mr. Prabhakar Singh lacks the qualification in Civil or Structural Engineering. They have further claimed that Mr. Prabhakar Singh claims to have visited the site on 25.8.2018, whereas actually his visit had taken place on 1.9.2018.  In the absence of any Field Notes prepared by the Ld. Commissioner, which could have been got counter signed from the Complainant’s side, such contention raised by them cannot be discarded outright in the given facts and circumstances, since a letter dated 5.11.2020 issued by Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB), which was almost a year and a half after the alleged visit of the Court Commissioner had taken  place, note of the fact that the housing project’s sewer line was still not connected to the main sewer line or the terminal STP, which clearly shows the absence of the basic amenities. A subsequent review inspection by the Punjab Pollution Control Board again confirmed that the installed STP was non-operational due to lack of a connecting rising main pipeline.  In this view of the matter, this Commission is convinced that there was gross deficiency on the part of the Appellant/Improvement Trust in providing the Flats promised to the Allottees in a habitable condition with all the basic amenities as specified in the original Brochure. 

18. The argument raised on behalf of the Improvement Trust that the second set of Complaints filed by the Counter Appellants were in themselves not maintainable as being under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is also not valid. While Ld. Counsel for the Improvement Trust contended that, in omitting seek the relief of refund in the first stage of complaints, the Complainants had lost their right to claim it subsequently once they had been granted compensation for delay in the form of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- each.  This submission on behalf of the Improvement Trust, however, is not at all convincing.  It may be observed that when possession of the Flats had not been delivered to the Complainants within the time specified according to their respective Agreements i.e. by 26.10.2013, they were well within their right to seek delay compensation for the time being, as they possibly could not have foreseen the gross inefficiency and deficiency in service, which was to follow in future.  After compensation by way of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- each had been awarded by the District Forum, and Appeals preferred by both sides against such Order had already been dismissed, it was the Improvement Trust which approached this Commission by filing RP Nos. 96 to 109 of 2017, which were dismissed in limini without even notifying the Complainants in the year 2017. By the time the fresh Complaints were filed in November, 2017, already four years had passed beyond the original scheduled date of delivery of possession, and there appeared to be still no possibility of completion of the Project within a reasonable time, on account of which the Complainants had an altogether new cause of action, which was different and distinct from the original cause in their earlier Complaints, in which they could not have anticipated such inordinate delay and inefficiency on the part of a statutory Authority, which therefore impelled them to once for all abandon their intentions to wait indefinitely for their respective Flats.  They were therefore clearly justified in seeking refund of the amount paid by them to the Improvement Trust alongwith appropriate compensation.

19. The above view  is consistent with the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in “C.A No. 3182 of 2019 dated 25.03.2019, Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Versus Devasis Rudra”, observing inter alia –

 “…..It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 2016, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March, 2016. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified…….”. 

 

20. Similarly, in “Sivarama Sarma Jonnalagadda & Anr. Vs. M/s. Maruthi Corporation Limited & Anr., CC No. 379 of 2013, decided on 21.09.2021”, this Commission had held inter alia – 

“We are of the view that the Complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession and the act of the Opposite Party in relying on force majeure clause while retaining the amounts deposited by the Complainants, is not only an act of deficiency of service but also amounts to unfair trade practice.”

21. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Commission is of the opinion that apart from the refund of the amounts paid by them to the Improvement Trust for purchase of their respective dwelling Units, the Cross Appellants/Complainants are also entitled to reasonable compensation by way of interest on such payments made to the Appellant/Improvement Trust.  In this regard, reliance may be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, in Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 7149 of 2019, decided on 7.4.2022, in which it was observed as follows – 

“…32. 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. 

33. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just and we find no reason to -24- interfere in the appeal filed by the consumer for enhancement of interest……”

22. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeals filed on behalf of the Appellant/Town Improvement Trust are dismissed, while the Cross Appeals filed on behalf of various Complainants are allowed by modifying the impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission to the extent that apart from refund of the amounts deposited by Cross Appellants and the compensation @ Rs. 50,000/- awarded to each of them, they are also held entitled to addition compensation by way of interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective date of each deposit made by each of them, till the date of final payment within three months from the date of passing of this Order.  Needless to mention, any compensation already received by them in the form of monthly rental at Rs. 10,000/- each, as originally granted by the Ld. District Forum, shall be set off against such delay compensation payable to them with a similar rate of interest of 9% p.a. in favour of the Improvement Trust, against such monthly rental paid by it for any period in the interregnum.

23. In the event of non-compliance of this Order, any unpaid amount(s) shall attract an interest rate of 12% p.a. till the date of final realisation.

24. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.