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 17.11.2016 of the Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the “State Commission”) allowing Appeal No. 293 of 2016 against the order dated 25.02.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short, “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 97 of 2015.

2. This order will also dispose Revision Petition No. 462 of 2017 which challenges order of the State Commission in Appeal no. 294 of 2016 dated 17.11.2016 which pertains to the same set of facts and agitates identical grievances. For the sake of convenience, RP 461 of 2017 is taken as the lead case from which the facts are considered.

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 delay of 01 day in the filing of the revision petition was condoned in the interest of justice.

5. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that the appellant booked apartment no. O-104 in respondent’s project ‘Maya Garden’ Apartments Phase II, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Punjab vide allotment letter dated 05.12.2009 for a sale consideration of Rs.24,82,866/-. Possession was promised in December 2011. An Agreement to Sell (“Agreement”) was signed on 08.07.2011 as per which either of two Payment Option Plans were offered: a Down Payment Plan (Plan A) with the initial booking of Rs.1,00,000/- on 23.11.2009 to be followed by 15% of the basic sale price on 03.12.2009, 80% on 19.04.2011 and the final 5% with stamp duty and other charges at the time of possession or Plan B which was a Construction Linked Plan based on a Tripartite Agreement dated 15.11.2011 with LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Petitioner paid Rs.24,82,866/- including basic sale price, car parking charges (Rs.80,000/-). It is alleged that maintenance charges of Rs.1,00,000/- for 3 years, Rs.65,212/- as service tax and Rs.3,09,000/- as interest for delayed payments were also collected from him under protest at the time of handing over possession based on the offer of possession dated 28.03.2013. Possession was delivered on 01.12.2013 and sale deed executed on 07.03.2014. The petitioner alleges that no proper covered parking has ben provided despite collection of charges apart from the fact that other charges were levied, including interest for delayed payments. It is contended that the delay was on account of delays by the respondent in obtaining various approvals which prevented the petitioner from obtaining a bank loan in time.

6. Consequently, he was compelled to approach the District Forum which allowed his complaint and directed refund of Rs.3,09,000/- paid towards interest and Rs.1,00,000/- paid towards maintenance and refund of parking charges Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 01.12.2013 till possession along with penalty @ Rs.5/- per sq ft per month for deficiency on account of delay in possession from 01.04.2013 till possession and Rs.25,000/- for harassment and litigation cost. However, the State Commission vide order dated 17.11.2016 allowed the appeal of the respondent in part and directed payment of only Rs.73,600/- towards parking charges after setting aside the other directions. This order is impugned before us.

7. The petitioner’s case is that the State Commission failed to appreciate that it had not been possible to make payments as per Plan A in view of the fact that the respondent had failed to obtain a sanctioned building plan or necessary approvals from the competent authorities in respect of the project and that the Agreement dated 08.07.2011 itself was delayed. Accordingly, payments were made as per Plan B which had been accepted by the respondent as it was a signatory to the Tripartite Agreement. The State Commission also failed to appreciate that the respondent’s l