ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This Appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) challenges the order dated 28.02.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.483 of 2019 on the grounds that the State Commission while allowing the complaint has awarded relief not prayed for and without prescribing a time limit for compliance or imposing a penalty for the delay in delivery of services against consideration.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellants had booked Apartment D-2 in Tower/Block-D, ‘Casa Homes’ situated at Khara Landran Road, Sector 115, Mohali with super area of 1350 sq. ft. for a sale consideration of Rs.40,88,000/- in a project executed by the Respondents vide allotment letter dated 07.04.2018. As per Clause 7 of the Agreement to Sell dated 08.04.2018, possession had been promised by 31.03.2018, extendable till 31.07.2018 along with basic amenities and Occupation Certificate. Appellants obtained a loan of Rs.38,99,000/- from the Punjab National Bank and paid Rs.36,79,200/-as per schedule. Possession was not handed over even after expiry of the extended period, i.e. by September 2018. Respondents agreed to rectify certain defects in the apartment informed vide e-mails dated 15.09.2018 and 23.09.2018. The Respondents vide e-mail dated 24.09.2018 informed that 90% of the deficiencies had been rectified and the balance 10% would be resolved by 26.09.2018 and demanded payment of balance 10% of basic price payable at the time of possession. The Appellants insisted on the payment of the balance amount only after issuance of Occupation Certificate which the respondents failed to provide. An offer of possession was sent by the Respondents on 03.03.2019 but without rectifying all the defects and without providing the Occupation Certificate. Appellants had the flat inspected through a Surveyor who estimated the cost of rectification as Rs.5 Lakhs.

3. Appellants thereafter approached the State Commission in CC No.483 of 2019 seeking possession along with Occupation/Completion Certificate from the authorities along with Rs.5 Lakhs for rectification of the defects with interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited from the promised date of possession till the date of actual possession, apart from payment of rent @ Rs.15,000/- per month, Rs.5 Lakhs for mental agony and harassment and Rs.55,000/- as litigation charges. This complaint came to be decided on contest by way of the impugned order. The State Commission passed the following order:—

13. Consequently, we allow the complaint of the complainants against OPs No.1-3

and dismiss qua OP No.4-Bank, as Bank is a proforma party in this case and

issue the following directions to OPs No.1-3:—

(i) to deliver the possession with occupation/completion certificate of the apartment/flat, in question to the complainants after removing the above noted defects/discrepancies; and complainants are directed to pay 10% remaining amount of basic sale price.

Or

If OPs No.1-3 fail to deliver the possession of the apartment/flat after removing the defects and after issuing completion/occupancy certificate then they are directed to refund the amount of Rs.36,79,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, w.e.f. the dates of payments till realization,

(ii) to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony.

(iii) to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. The present Appeal has been filed on the grounds that the State Commission has not appreciated that the Appellants did not seek refund of the amount deposited with the Respondents and had only sought damages for delay in possession along with Occupation Certificate and other costs and that the impugned order while directing the delivery of possession with Occupation Certificate did not impose any costs by way of interest or prescribe any time limit for compliance. T