IMPORTANT POINT
18% interest must be awarded on amount of refund.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—These two appeals have been filed under section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 08.04.2015, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 156/2012, filed by the appellants Nitin Gupta & Shaweta Gupta in First Appeal No. 775/2015, against the opposite party (OP) builders Eldeco Infrastructure and Properties Ltd., who are the appellants in First Appeal No. 446/2015. As per the impugned order, the following directions were given by the State Commission to the OP builders:—

“a. to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 66,97,096/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of its realisation.

b. to pay to the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lac for harassment, mental agony, inconvenience, anguish and frustration.

c. to pay to the complainant litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 2 lac.”

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants Nitin Gupta and his wife Shaweta Gupta booked a flat with the OP builders, Eldeco Infrastructure and Properties Ltd., vide their application dated 26.05.2008, upon which a residential unit no. 601, 6th Floor, Type-D, Block S-6, having super area of 1955 sq. ft. was allotted to the complainants for a total consideration of Rs. 66,97,096/-. The complainants paid a booking amount of Rs. 3,65,646/- vide two receipts dated 26.05.2008. A Flat Buyers’ Agreement was executed between the parties on 10.06.2008. The complainants paid the total amount of Rs. 66,97,096/- to the OP till 13.07.2008. It is stated that the OP builders agreed to deliver the possession of the residential unit within 34 months i.e. upto May, 2011. However, finding no progress at site, the complainants sent an e-mail to them on 22.04.2011, in reply to which, the OP stated on 10.01.2012 that the possession shall be handed over to them by the last quarter of 2012. However, since the OP builders failed to deliver the said possession, the consumer complaint in question was filed, seeking directions to the OP to pay interest on the deposited amount of Rs. 66,97,096/- @ 18% per annum from June, 2011 till completion of the development works. In addition, direction was sought to the OP to pay a penalty of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month from June, 2011 onwards as per the terms of the agreement. The complainants also demanded compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for mental harassment etc. and Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation. In total, a total amount of Rs. 23,62,772/- was asked by the complainants vide their complaint dated 22.09.2012. The State Commission allowed the complaint and gave directions as noted earlier vide impugned order. Being aggrieved against the impugned order, the complainants as well as the OP builder have challenged the same by way of the present two appeals. In Appeal No. 446/2015, filed by the OP builders, a prayer has been made that the impugned order should be set aside, since the unit in question was ready for delivery of possession. In the appeal filed by the complainants, a prayer has been made, that a further amount of Rs. 1,85,725/- and Rs. 2,80,900/-, the total being Rs. 4,66,625/- had been deposited by them towards lease money and parking charges with the OP builders. The said amount should also be refunded to them, apart from the amount already ordered by the State Commission.

3. During arguments before us, the learned counsel for the OP builders stated that after filing of the consumer complaint in question, they had offered possession of the property to the complainants vide their letter dated 12.12.2013. The complainants had been asked to pay the balance charges and settle the dues with them before taking possession. The learned counsel stated that in the evidence affidavit also, they had mentioned that final demand notice dated 12.12.2013 had been iss