Rajesh Soni vs Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member

This appeal under Section 19  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) assails the order dated 07.02.2018 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh  (in short, the 'State Commission’) in Complaint Case No. 825 of 2017 whereby the State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party/Respondent herein to refund Rs.19,91,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

We have heard the Learned Counsels for both Parties and perused the records.

The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellant had booked a residential plot of 250 sq.yd in the Respondent’s project in Sector-118, Mohali, Punjab and was allotted Plot No.612. The sale consideration of the plot was Rs.17,37,500/- of which Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to the Respondent at the time of the booking. A total of Rs.19,91,500/-, including development charges, was paid by the Appellant which included Rs.50,000/- as penalty for the dishonoring of a cheque for Rs.19,91,500/-  by the bank that had been paid by him under protest. On 25.01.2014 he approached the Respondent for handing over of the possession and followed it up with reminders dated 25.02.2014 and 13.05.2014. However, possession was not handed over. Instead, vide letter dated 09.01.2016, an alternate plot was offered by the Respondent on the ground that land acquisition proceedings were not complete in respect of the originally allotted plot. Vide letter dated 13.04.2017 Respondent conveyed its inability to hand over possession and offered refund with 12% interest. Appellant contends that since Respondent was levying penal interest @ 21% for the delay in payments, the offer was not acceptable and therefore he approached the State Commission by way of a complaint. The State Commission, on contest, held that the Respondent was liable for deficiency of service since legal possession of the said plot had not been provided till date which was beyond the stipulated period. According to the State Commission the OP / Respondent had not given any sufficient reason for the delay and the project appeared to be far from completion. This order is impugned before us by the Appellant praying that the order in Complaint No.825 of 2017 be modified and to award interest on the amount of Rs.19,91,500/-  to be @ 18% p.a. from the dates of various deposits, along with an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for mental and physical agony.

The contention of the Complainant is essentially to seek enhancement of the compensation awarded. However, during the pendency of the case, vide IA/7163/2022 dated 02.08.2022, a prayer was made to amend the reliefs sought to seek handing over of an alternative, developed plot of similar size.

The case of the Appellant is that he had already paid almost 95% of the total sale consideration of the plot and  possession was to be given within three years from the date of the booking. It was submitted that Rrespondent vide letter dated 09.01.2016 offered an alternative plot in an undeveloped area on the false pretext that the acquisition proceedings were pending before Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court with regard to the land on which plot no. 612, TDI City, Sector 118, Mohali was situated which he refused to accept since he was interested only in the already allotted plot no. 612 or a plot in the vicinity.

Further,  the information sought under RTI Act from Town & Village Planning, Punjab reveals that Plot no. 612 falls in khasra no. 26/9 and 26//10 and Jamabandi shows that ownership of Plot no. 612 situated in khasra no. 26/19 and 26/10 was in the name of Respondent. It is apparent that the Respondent falsely submitted that Plot No.612 was not available with them since they wanted to sell it at a higher price to a new allottee. It was submitted in the written arguments, to hand over possession of the Plot No.612 or an alternative plot of the same size in TDI City, Sector-118, Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab alongwith interest @ 21% p.a. for the delay in handing over possession. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahila Ramkali Devi & Ors. Vs. Nandram (D) through LRs & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2366 of 2010 dated 14.05.2015 and the order of this Commission in Parsvnath Exotica Ghaziabad Resident’s Association Vs Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. CC No.45 of 2015 dated 06.05.2016 in support of his case.

Per contra, Respondent states that its case is that the plot had been allotted to Appellant was part of Critical Gap Area for land acquisition proceedings were delayed and therefore the land on which plot No.612 was situated was not available for development and allotment of the plot. Therefore, an alternate plot had been offered to the Appellant who did not accept the offer. In view of there not being any other option, the Respondent had offered to hand over an alternate plot. It was contended that the relief being sought was not justified since the interest being claimed was exorbitantly high especially when an alternative plot had been offered to the Appellant which was turned down. It is also contended that the State Commission had erred in awarding refund with an exorbitant  interest @ 18%.

From the foregoing, it is apparent that there was a delay on the part of the Respondent in offering the plot booked by the Appellant in its project. It is also evident that the delay was on account of land acquisition proceedings which were being conducted by the State Government Authorities. It is noteworthy that the Appellant had refused to accept allotment of an alternative piece of land and on being offered refund with compensation had moved for re-allotment of an alternate plot. The impugned order has awarded refund of the deposited amount of Rs.19,91,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the filing of the complaint. At this stage, we do not consider it appropriate to consider the appellants’ prayer for an alternate plot since his alternate prayer before the State Commission for refund stands adjudicated and is under appeal before us.

In Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, Civil Appeal No. 6044 of 2019 decided on 07.04.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that compensation should be both compensatory and restitutionary and in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda, that  the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit.  An interest rate of 18%, has however, been held to be excessive and compensation @ 9% rate of interest is fair and just compensation to be considered.

As mentioned above, the State Commission has not provided any reasons for awarding interest @ 18% p.a. We, therefore, feel that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the refund with 9% interest which has been held as just and equitable by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment. In view of the fact that project has been inordinately delayed for which no mitigating reasons have been brought on record by the Appellant, it is evident that there has been deficiency in service qua the Respondent. The order of the State Commission awarding refund with interest cannot, therefore, be faulted. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid position of law, the Appeal is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified as below:-

i. Respondent shall refund entire amount of Rs.19,91,500/- to the Respondent with 9% interest p.a. from the respective dates of deposit within eight weeks, failing which the default rate of interest shall be 12% p.a. till the date of realisation;

ii. Respondent shall pay litigation cost quantified at Rs.50,000/- to the Appellant.

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of with this order.