ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) challenges order dated 03.10.2017 of the Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the “State Commission”) allowing Appeal No. 843 of 2016 against the order dated 12.09.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short, “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 591 of 2015.

2. This order will also dispose Revision Petition No. 3338 of 2018 which is a cross petition filed by the respondent Development Authority against the same order of the State Commission (Appeal no. 843 of 2016 dated 03.10.2017) pertaining to the same set of facts. For the sake of convenience, RP 3489 of 2017 is taken as the lead case from which the facts are considered. In the interest of justice, and for the reasons mentioned in the IA seeking condonation of delay, the delay of 168 in the filing of RP 3338 of 2018 was condoned.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given careful consideration to the material placed on record and the arguments urged before us.

4. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner, Ram Pal, had been allotted a Type 2, residential Flat (General Category) in Purab Premium Apartments, Sector 88, SAS Nagar, Mohali by a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 21.05.2012 issued by the respondent. As per Clause 3(II) of the LOI possession was to be handed over in 36 months. Allottee had the right to withdraw in case the respondent failed to deliver possession within the stipulated time when he would be entitled to the entire refund with interest @ 8% compounded annually. Petitioner deposited Rs.33,00,000/- in instalments against the consideration of Rs.55,00,000/-. The respondent failed to hand over possession as promised within 36 months and hence petitioner sought refund on 24.05.2015. Refund of Rs.25,89,525/- was approved on 23.06.2015, after deducting Rs.6,93,480/- and Rs.16,995/- paid towards service tax. Petitioner moved the District Forum seeking refund of the deducted amount which was dismissed on the ground that the deductions were correctly made as per the terms of the LOI and as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Rajiv Arora Vs. State of Punjab, CWP No. 16153 of 2014 dated 21.07.2015. In challenge before the State Commission, First Appeal No. 843/2016 partly upheld the contentions of the petitioner and directed that the respondent deduct only Rs.6,25,000/- and not Rs.6,93,000/- and refund Rs.16,995/- deducted towards service tax. Accordingly it directed that Rs.68,480/- and Rs.16,995/- be refunded with interest @ 9% p.a. from 25.08.2015 till realization with Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses. This order is impugned before us.

5. Petitioner relied upon clause 3 (II) of the LOI wherein possession was promised in a period of 36 months failing which the entire amount deposited was to be refunded by the respondent with 8% compounded interest. It was argued that respondent’s failure to handover possession in the stipulated 36 months constituted deficiency in service and therefore he was entitled to refund under the LOI without any deductions. Reliance was placed on this Commission’s orders in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and Anr. Vs. Priyanka Nayyar, FA number 1456 of 2016 dated 22.12.2016, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2355 and Vinay Gupta Vs. Estate Officer (H), GMADA, CC No. 750 of 2015 dated 10.03.2016.

6. Per contra, respondent contended that petitioner had defaulted in making the payments as per the LOI repeatedly and had admitted to its default vide letter dated 27.11.2014 agreeing to pay the pending dues with penalty and applicable service tax. It was contended that the deductions made were in accordance with Clause 5(VII) of the LOI and that the State Commission’s order holding that the deduction of 10% was incorrect was not justified. According t