JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          On behalf of the appellants this matter was argued on 24.02.2020.  The matter has been argued today on behalf of the respondent though; no-one is present for the appellants / complainants.

2.      The complainants / appellants applied to the respondent Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Housing Building Societies Ltd., which is a State Agency engaged in construction of houses and flats in the State of Punjab and disbursal of loan to its members for construction of houses in the Rural and Urban areas of the State, for allotment of residential flats in a Scheme ‘Super Deluxe Flats’, which the respondent was to construction in Section 79 of SAS Nagar, Mohali.  Allocations were made to the complainants / appellants and the cost of the flat was also paid by them in due course.  No specific timeframe for delivery of possession of the flats was committed by the respondent.  The possession to the complainants / appellants however, came to be offered on 14.7.2014.

3.      The respondent had also collected excess amount towards stamp duty from the complainants which the respondent later refunded to them, without any interest on that amount.  After taking possession of the flats, the complainants / appellants approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate consumer complaints, seeking interest on the amount which they had paid for the flats as well as on the excess stamp duty which the respondent had collected from them, along with compensation etc.

4.      The complaints were resisted by the respondent, which inter-alia stated in its reply that the possession of the land came to be delivered to them only on 24.2.2010 and therefore, they could not be faulted for the delay in completion of the construction.  According to the respondent, though, two land sites had been allotted to it by Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUDA) for construction of residential flats of different categories and the possession of the said sites was delayed by PUDA.

5.      The State Commission vide impugned orders directed the respondent to pay interest to the complainant @ 12% per annum on the amount of the excess stamp duty with effect from the date the said amount was taken till its refund.  The respondent was also directed to pay compensation quantified at Rs.55,000/- to each set of complainants for the mental agony and harassment suffered by them.  The said compensation also included the litigation expenses.  Being aggrieved the appellants are before this Commission.

6.      In FA/1484/2018 Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. Vs. Chander Pal Tyagi, decided on 14.5.2019 a similar matter came to be considered by this Commission, in that case, the State Commission had directed the respondent to pay interest for delay in possession of the flats by way of interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 07.9.2010, along with compensation quantified at Rs.20,000/-.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission in that case, the respondent had approached this Commission by way of the above referred appeal.  Modifying the order passed by the State Commission in that case, this Commission inter-alia held as under:

          “4.           It is not in dispute that the appellant is not a private builder but an instrumentality of the State of Punjab, having been set up interalia for the purpose of construction of houses and providing financial assistance to its members for the said purpose. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the appellant in compliance of the direction of this Commission dated 7.5.2019 would show that whatever amount the appellant receives from the members/allottees is deposited in a account from which all payments are made by it. The said account is stated to be a savings bank account. Therefore, at best the appellant earned interest  on the amount received from the complainant, for the period for which interest @ 9% p.a. has been awarded to him by the State Commission. Considering that the appellant is not engaged in the business of constructing houses, is not actuated by any profit motive and is primarily helping the residents of the State by constructing houses for them on self-finance basis and giving financial assistance to them for construction of houses, the appellant in my opinion should not be burdened with interest to the extent awarded by the State Commission. The appellant in my opinion should pay compensation in the form of simple interest at the savings bank rate for the period the interest has been awarded by the State Commission. Therefore, the impugned order is modified to the extent that instead of awarding interest and compensation in terms of the order of the State Commission, the appellant shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 4% per annum to the complainant within six weeks from today. The order passed by the State Commission is modified accordingly and appeal stands disposed of.”

7.      In the present case, the State Commission has awarded interest @ 12% per annum to the complainants / appellants on the amount of the excess stamp duty, which it had collected from the complainants / appellants.  Though, the impugned order has not been challenged by the respondent, the aforesaid direction, in my opinion can be suitably modified by this Commission, while considering the appeal of the complainants on the quantum of compensation for the delay in offer of possession of the allotted flats to them, both the reliefs being part of the same consumer complaints.  In my opinion, considering the interest rates prevailing at the relevant time, the direction for payment of interest @ 12% per annum by a State Agency would not be justified.  Considering all the facts and circumstances, including the interest rates prevalent at the relevant time, the respondent, in my opinion should pay interest @ 9% per annum to the complainants / appellants on that amount.  Ordered accordingly.

8.      Coming to the compensation for the delay in possession of the allotted flats, though no specific timeframe was committed by the respondent to the complainants / appellants, the respondent could not have delayed the possession of the flats for an indefinite period.  Even if the possession of the land on which the flats were to be constructed by the respondent was given late to it by PUDA, the respondent invested or utilized for its own purposes, the amount which it had collected from the complainants / appellants before receiving possession of the land form PUDA.  The said amount would have been spent by the respondent on the construction of the houses only after possession of the land had been received by it from PUDA.  Considering all the facts and circumstances, the respondent, in my opinion should pay interest to the complainants with effect from the period of three years from the date on which allocation was made to them.  In terms of the order passed by this Commission in Chander Pal Tyagi (supra), the respondent should pay interest @ 4% per annum to the complainants / appellants with effect from three years from the date of allocation till the date on which the possession was offered by it to the complainants / appellants.  No separate compensation for the mental agony and harassment needs to be paid by the respondent. 

9.      The compensation by way of interest @ 4% per annum in terms of this order, shall be payable only on the amount, which the complainants / appellants had paid to the respondent till the date on which possession of the land was received by it. The order passed by the State Commission therefore, stands modified accordingly.

10.    The payment in terms of this order shall be made within eight weeks from today. 

          The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.