ORDER

This first appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) assails the order dated 22.11.2021 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint case no.CC/1350 of 2016 allowing the complaint.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record.

3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent had booked flat in a project of the appellant namely KLJ Heights, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. As per the Flat Buyers Agreement (FBA) dated 07.11.2012. Flat No.503, Tower B 2 admeasuring 1600 sq ft (super area) was allotted to the respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.1920/- per sq foot exclusive of all other charges mentioned in the schedule of payment. As per Clause 4 (1) and 4 (2) of the FBA, the appellant was required to deliver the flat within 36 months from the date of the FBA with a grace period of six months, i.e., by 06.05.2016. As per the application form and the FBA, the appellant had stated that all approvals were in place since 2008 to develop the said project and that the flat in question would be delivered as per the schedule in the FBA. A sum of Rs.32,12,501/- was paid by the respondent over several instalments to the appellant as per the demand raised including through a loan of Rs.10 lakh obtained by the respondent from the State Bank of Patiala, Bahadurgarh. As possession was not offered as per the date indicated in the FBA, the respondent sent a legal notice dated 10.10.2016 seeking refund of the amount already paid with interest to no avail. Thereafter, a Consumer Complaint no.1350 of 2016 was filed before the State Commission on 04.11.2016. This complaint came to be disposed of on contest through the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 along with the complaint directing the appellant to refund the entire amount paid by the respondent (Rs.32,12,50/-) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of each payment till 22.11.2021, the date of the order, along with interest or, in default thereof, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of each instalment till realisation, along with Rs.2.00 lakh for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- without deduction of TDS on the amount being paid/refunded. This order is challenged before us.

4. The appellant has contended that the State Commission’s order erred in directing the refund of the money deposited with it by the respondent without appreciating that the delay was only of 11 months on account of the delay in obtaining the occupation certification without which the possession could not have been offered. It was contended that the Occupation Certificate was received by the appellant on 20.04.2017 and offer of possession was made to the respondent on 22.04.2017. It was contended that the State Commission had over looked the fact that the appellant had completed the project on 19.08.2015 which was prior to the expiry of 36 months and that the appellant had applied for Occupation Certificate from the competent authority. The delay in handing over of possession was therefore attributed to delay in obtaining the Occupation Certificate which would have amounted to an illegal offer of possession as held by this Commission in Kamal Kishore and Ors. vs Supertech Limited in CC no.1009 of 2016 dated 14.03.2017. It was further contended that some delays in large projects were inevitable as had been opined by this Commission in Vineet Kumar and Ors vs DLF Universal Limited and Ors., in FA no.1340 of 2016. It is the case of the appellant that despite force majeure and other circumstance beyond the control of the appellant, the delay in the offer of possession was essentially due to the delay in the grant of the Occupation Certificate. It was further contended that the State Commission had erroneously held that the respondent to be a “consumer” under the Act since the respondent has not booke