IMPORTANT POINT
Interest – It is well established principle that the interest in the form of interest should be just and equitable and commensurate with the loss and injury.

ORDER

Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member—The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) in challenge to the Order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Complaint No. 382 of 2019 whereby the complaint of the complainant was partly accepted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainants’) and the learned counsel for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘builder company’) and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 08.11.2019 and the memorandum of appeal.

3. The brief facts are that the builder company had entered into an agreement with Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma son of Jaggi Dutt and Sh. Lalit Kumar Vashisht son of Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma, residents of H. No.1357, old no. 560, New Railway Road, Dayanand Colony, Gurgaon whereby Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma and Sh. Lalit Kumar Vashishisht were allotted the apartment no. 04 on 04th floor in Tower No. 26 having a super area of approximately 119 sq. mt. (1275 sq. ft.) in the proposed Group Housing Complex of the builder company. The said Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma and Sh. Lalit Kumar Vashisht vide agreement to sell sold their rights, title and interests of the said flat to the complainants for a total consideration of Rs.5,16,375/-. Therefore, the complainants had been assigned with the rights and liabilities as per the endorsement dated 23.11.2007 under the agreement by Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma and Sh. Lalit Kumar Vashisht and the said endorsement was duly confirmed by the builder company and transferred their allotment rights in favour of the complainants. The builder company had sold the said flat at the basic rate of Rs.1500/- per sq. ft. i.e. at a total basic price of Rs.19,12,500/- to the complainants and the possession thereof was to be delivered to the complainants by 2010. It is alleged that the complainants had paid a sum of Rs.7,59,250/- to the builders as per the schedule towards the purchase of the flat. It is further alleged that the builder company had not even constructed its second floor and had failed to handover the physical possession of the flat to the complainant within the assured period. The complainants made request for refund of the amount of Rs.7,59,250/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum but the builder company had not acceded the request.

4. The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking refund an amount of Rs.7,50,250/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum alongwith compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation.

5. The builder company contested the complaint by filing reply stating that the complaint is barred by limitation and the complainants were offered a refund of her entire deposited sum with interest at the rate of 9% per annum but the said offer was not accepted by the complainants and refused the alternatve flats offered to them. It is also stated that the builder company never promised possession of the flat in 2010 and the Consumer Protection Act is not vested with the powers of a civil court in as much as no order for specific performance can be passed by it and the relief sought is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the form and the complaint is not maintainable.

6. The State Commission, vide its order dated 08.11.2019 partly accepted the complaint and directed the builder company to refund the deposited amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

7. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, the complainants have filed the present appeal seeking refund of the principal amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, before this Commission.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the builder company has not handed over the physical possession of the flat within the presc