Bhanu Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Jasjit Kaur & Anr

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member

This Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Appellants (hereinafter referred to as “the Builders”) against the order dated 17.05.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.109 of 2019 allowing the said Complaint.

The brief facts of the case are that the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as (“the Complainants”) had booked a shop/office in the International Trade Tower at New Chandigarh for a sale consideration of ₹37 Lakhs and had paid a sum of ₹26,40,985/- through ten installments between 24.07.2012 to 05.10.2018.

The State Commission, on contest, had held that the Appellants were guilty of deficiency in service and had ordered the refund of ₹26,40,985/- with interest @ 12% from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA and to pay ₹50,000/- as lumpsum compensation for mental agony and realization towards litigation expenses.

The Appellants have refunded the amount of ₹26,40,985/- to the Complainants and the only issue surviving at present is that of the rate of interest @ 12% awarded by the State Commission, which the Builder/Appellant contends is excessive.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material on record.  In the interest of justice, the delay of  24 days in preferring the Appeal is condoned.

Both the parties agree that the only issue surviving in the matter is that of the rate of interest.

In Wg Cdr Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2020) 16 SCC 512 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice must adequately compensate the Complainant.  In Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, C.A. No. 6044 of 2019 decided on 07.04.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that compensation by way of interest has to be both compensatory as well as restitutionary.  An interest rate of 9% p.a. was also held to be fair and just.

In view of the fact that the principal amount has been refunded in full by the Builders to the Complainants and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be approp,riate if the compensation in the form of interest @ 9% p.a. is paid by the Builders to the Complainants.

For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order is modified to the extent of rate of interest awarded by the State Commission.  The Appellant No.1 are directed to pay interest  @ 9% on the amount of ₹26,40,985/- from the respective dates of deposits till the date on which the refund was made.  Litigation costs of ₹50,000/- awarded is left undisturbed.

This order shall be complied with within eight weeks, failing which the applicable rate of interest will be 12% p.a. till realization.  All the pending applications stand disposed of.