IMPORTANT POINTS :
(1) Standard Compensation Rate – In cases where the Allottee has already taken possession of the unit, compensation for the delay should not be excessive.
(2) Overlapping Heads of Damages – Consumer Forums must avoid awarding compensation under multiple heads for the same deficiency.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member.—This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Order dated 04.07.2019 in Consumer Complaint No. 448 of 2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, vide which, the Complaint filed by the Respondent was partly allowed with the following directions -

“22. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs. Opposite parties no.1 to 3, jointly and severally, are directed as under: -

(i) To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant, possession of which had already been delivered on 14.04.2019 during pendency of this complaint, within three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by him to the Registering Authorities.

(ii) To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 11.08.2015 (30 months from 12.02.2013, the date, by which 95% of the basic sale price stood received by opposite parties no.1 to 3) till 14.04.2019 (the date when possession delivered), within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. for the entire period aforesaid, till the payment is made. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are allowed to deduct/adjust the amount of Rs.8.04.407.37ps. payable by the complainant, as referred to above. However, it is made clear that this amount shall be deducted/adjusted out of the total compensation payable by opposite parties no.1 to 3, to the complainant and no interest shall be charged from the complainant on the said amount.

(iii) To install lift(s)/elevator(s) in the block/tower, wherein, the unit, in question, is located and also to remove the defects/deficiencies pointed out by the complainant at the time of taking over possession of the unit, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which they shall pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of passing of this order, till realization.

(iv) To pay compensation. in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainant, deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a.. from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

(v) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a.. from the date of filing this complaint till realization.”

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant/Respondent in December 2011 had booked Flat No. AIFC/FF/489, initially measuring 1425 sq. ft. and later increased to 1646 sq. ft., in the project “Ambrosia Independent Chandigarh” located at Mullanpur, Punjab, launched by the Opposite Parties/ Appellants No. 1 to 3. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.26,62,902.52/-, out of which the Complainant had paid Rs.24,92,699.58/- by 12.02.2013 under the down payment plan. Despite this substantial payment, the Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 failed to send the Allotment Letter/Buyer’s Agreement for execution. It was only in August 2014, after repeated persuasion, that the Allotment Letter was sent to the Complainant. However, upon receipt, the Complainant found the terms to be one-sided and heavily tilted in favour of the Builder. He returned the document vide letter dated 30.08.2014, requesting amendments to the penalty Clauses and clarification on possession timelines, as no construction had begun even after two and a half years. In response, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 05