ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member—This Order shall decide both the Appeals arising out from the impugned Order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 90/2015, wherein the State Commission partly allowed the complaint.

2. There was a delay of 230 days in the filing of Appeal no. 618 of 2017. For the reason stated in IA/4333/2017, the delay is condoned.

3. For Convenience, the parties are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. Chetan Prakash (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) being First Appeal No.1128 of 2016. While the M/s. ALM Infotech City Private Ltd. & Anr. (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Parties / OPs. Builder) being First Appeal No.618 of 2017.

4. Brief relevant facts of the case are that the Complainant Shri Chetan Prakash booked a flat bearing No.3C, Block Panaroma, Type 3BR, 3rd Floor, ILD Grand, Sector 37-C, Gurgaon, admeasuring 1789 Sq Ft with ALM infotech City Private Limited (for short ‘the Builder’/Opposite Parties). The Complainant made an initial payment of Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.04.2012 and received the Provisional Allotment Letter on 16.08.2012. Thereafter, on 21.10.2013, an Apartment Buyers Agreement was executed between the Complainant and the Builder, stipulating that possession of the flat will be made within 36 months from the date of the Agreement, with an additional grace period of 180 days. Despite the Complainant paying a total of Rs. 25,02,479/-, the builder failed to initiate construction of the flat. In April 2014, the Complainant requested for refund of the amount paid, leading to the builder canceling the flat booking on 04.02.2015.

5. Subsequently, legal notice was issued by the Complainant demanding refund the amount paid along with 18% interest per annum. However, this yielded no response. Being Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint no. 90 of 2015, before the State Commission, with prayer as under:—

(i) To refund the amount of Rs.25,02,479/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of demand i.e., April 2014 till realization.

(ii) To pay an amount of Rs.50,00,00/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service.

(iii) To pay Rs.10,00,00/- as cost of litigation.

6. In their response to the State Commission, the Builder (OP) acknowledged receiving a total of Rs.25,02,479/- from the Complainant. In terms of Clause 9.1 of the Apartment Buyers Agreement the construction of the project should be completed within 36 months from the date of Agreement, with an additional grace period of 180 days. The total sale consideration amount was Rs.80,47,975/-, and the payment was as per Construction Linked Plan. The Complainant failed to adhere to the timeline for payments. The OPs issued reminder notices including the one dated 02.07.2012 to settle the outstanding due of Rs.11,01,653/-. As the Complainant failed to pay, the allotment was cancelled on 04.02.2015. The OPs sought the dismissal of the complaint.

7. The learned State Commission partly allowed the Complaint vide order dated 12.07.2016 & directed as follows:—

“12. In view of Harinder S. Kang’s case (Supra), the builder can forfeit 10% of the total sale consideration of the flat. In the present case, the basic sale price of the flat was Rs.67,98,200/- and 10% of it comes to Rs.6,79,920/- which can be forfeited by the builder. The complainant deposited Rs.25,02,479/-. Thus, the amount refundable to the complainant by the builder comes to Rs.18,22,559/- i.e. (Rs.25,02,479 - 6,79,920). The builder-opposite parties are liable to pay interest to the complainant @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of realization of this amount. It is ordered accordingly.”

8. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, both the parties i.e., the Complainant and the Oppos