ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member— This First Appeal, under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been filed by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred as “GMADA”) and its Estate Officer, against the Order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 718 of 2019, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainants (Respondents herein) was partly allowed.

2. As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 382 days in filing the present Appeal. The impugned order was passed by the State Commission on 14.02.2020 and received by the Appellants on 25.02.2020. While the prescribed period for filing the Appeal is 30 days, the present Appeal was filed on 12.04.2021. in terms of the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation the present Appeal filed during the suspended period of limitation be treated having been filed within limitation. The delay in the filing the matter has accordingly been condoned.

3. Brief facts of the case as per the Appellant are that the Appellant floated a scheme and invited applications for allotment of residential Flats at the project named Purab Premium Apartments at Mohali. Respondent No. 2 applied for the same. Thereafter, the Appellants conducted a draw of with respect to the allotment on 19.03.2012 and intimated Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 23.03.2012 that he is a successful allottee and a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 21.05.2012 was issued to Respondent No. 2. As per the same, the possession of flat was to be delivered by 21.05.2015. However, the Appellant/ OP failed to deliver the possession within the stipulated time, despite receiving 95% of the sale consideration. To pay the Appellants, the Complainants have taken loan from State Bank of India, which was subsequently repaid, as confirmed in a letter dated 16.01.2017 from the Bank. The allotment letter was issued to Complainants on 27.06.2016, offering possession within 30 days from the date of issue, subject to payment of the remaining payment. The Complainants, vide letter dated 15.07.2016, surrendered the flat under Clause 3(II) of LOI on the ground of delay in delivery of possession, financial constraints due to increase in area/price of flat, reduction in size of the project by 50% and the absence of a servant room. Based on the surrender, the Appellants/OP refunded Rs.45,00,673/- to the Complainants on 09.10.2017, after deducting Rs.5,52,370/- (10% of consideration amount) and Rs.16,995/- towards Service Tax, from amount deposited by them. As against the deductions and non-payment of interest on the amount deposited, the Complainants issued a Notice to the Appellants. The Appellants did not redress the grievances of the Complainants/ Respondents and refunded the dues.

4. Being aggrieved, the Complainants filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission, Chandigarh. Considering the pleadings before it, the learned State Commission vide order on 14.02.2020 held GMADA deficient in service with respect to the Complainant for not delivering the possession of the said residential apartment under Category-A, Type-2 in the ‘Purab Premium Apartments’ Scheme and ordered as follows:—

(i) To refund the balance amount of Rs.5,52,370/- along with interest at the rate of 8%, compounded annually, as per Clause 3(II) of the LOI from the date of deduction i.e., 09.10.2017 till realization.

(ii) To pay interest at the rate of 8% compounded annually on the refunded amount of Rs.45,00,673/- from the respective dates of deposit till date of refund i.e., 09.10.2017; and

(iii) To pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainants, including litigation.

5. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order of the A