ORDER

The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by the Appellant/Complainant assailing the Order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as the “State Commission”) in Complaint No. 140/2016, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was allowed and the Opposite Parties/Respondents herein, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and its Estate Officer (Housing) {hereinafter to be referred to as the “GMADA”} were directed to pay interest @8% compounded annually on a sum of Rs.63,30,750/- from the date of deposit till payment after deducting the amount already paid to the Complainant. The GMADA were further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.21,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case leading upto the present Appeal are that the GMADA floated a Housing Scheme under the name and style as “Purav Premium Apartments” for construction of 4500 Flats in Sector 88, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) on 12.12.2011. Vide Application No. 49056 dated 01.01.2012, the Complainant applied for allotment of Type-3 (Category-A) Flat for a total Sale Consideration of Rs.69,00,000/- and accordingly paid a sum of Rs.6,90,000/- along with application. Complainant was declared a successful Allottee in the draw of lots held on 20.03.2012 and Vide Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as the “LOI”) dated 22.05.2012, Complainant was allotted a Type-3 (Category A) Flat in the Purav Premium Apartments. To ensure the timely payment towards the Sale Consideration, Complainant raised Housing Loan of Rs.55,00,000/- from Punjab Gramin Bank, Mohali with interest @10.75% per annum compounded on monthly basis. According to the Complainant, he had made payment of Rs.63,30,750/- to the GMADA towards the total Sale Consideration on various dates.

3. As per Clause 3 (II) of the LOI, possession of the Apartment was proposed to be handed over to the Complainant within 36 months from the date of issuance of LOI, meaning thereby, the possession was supposed to be handed over to the Complainant on or before 22.05.2015, failing which the Allottee was entitled to withdraw from the Scheme by moving the requisite application before the Estate Officer and the GMADA was under an obligation to refund the deposited amount along with 8% interest compounded annually.

4. Factually, GMADA failed to deliver the possession of the Flat to the Complainant within the stipulated period of 36 months and thus the Complainant moved the requisite application on 01.06.2015 before the Estate Officer of GMADA seeking refund of the deposited amount along with interest @8% p.a. annually compounded which came to Rs.80,36,375.47 upto 31.07.2015. Resultantly, Complainant was handed over a Cheque bearing No. 117753 dated 11.09.2015 for an amount of Rs.64,10,582/- after deducting the service tax of Rs.21,321/- and TDS of Rs.11,239/-. Complainant made various representations including Demand Letter/Notice dated 12.10.2015, seeking payment of interest at the rate at which the Complainant had availed Housing Loan, however neither any reply was furnished by the Opposite Parties nor the interest was paid.

5. Having no other legal recourse left, Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 140 of 2016 before the State Commission seeking deficit interest of Rs.31,17,284/- along with further interest @12% p.a. and costs.

6. The Opposite Parties appeared before the State Commission and denied the contents of the Complaint further stating that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed since amount paid by the Complainants towards the purchase of Apartment, had already been refunded inconsonance with Clause 3(ii) of the Letter of Intent after deducting the Service Tax and TDS. It was submitted that the Complainant was paid interest @ 8% beyond 36 months from the date of issuance of LOI for the