The court confirmed the right to interest for delayed possession, noting the absence of force majeure and completion certificate.

1. This First Appeal by the Complainant is directed against the order, dated 8.8.2014, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short the State Commission) in Complaint No. 141 of 2013. By the impugned order, in the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Respondent / Developer, seeking compensation and interest on account of delay in delivery of possession of the flat in question, the State Commission, while partly allowing the Complaint, has directed the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant a sum of 7,24,100 (which includes 2,00,000 towards compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant) within a period of 30 days of receipt of copy of the order, failing which interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount was directed to be paid till payment.

2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the Appeal are that the Complainant, an individual, had booked a flat on the fifth floor of the project launched by the Respondent, christened as ˜Sunrise Greens', at Zirakpur, District Mohali. She was allotted Flat No. H - 501, at the total cost of 33,75,204 . In addition to the essential earnest money, amounting to 4,00,000, paid by the Appellant to the Respondent on 2.4.2008, a further sum of 25,36,428 towards part - sale consideration was also paid by her on 24.5.2008. It appears that subsequently, with mutual consent, the flat allotted at the 5 th floor was exchanged with another flat No. G - 303, with the same area, vide allotment letter dated 16.11.2009, at the revised price of 34,15,385. According to the Complainant, the possession of the flat was to be delivered by 30.6.2009. However, having realised that the completion of the flat in the near future was not in sight, the she filed the Complaint against the Respondent, inter alia, praying for a direction to them to pay to her a sum of 5,00,000 towards poor construction; 10,00,000 as compensation and damages for mental and physical suffering; 15,000 per month as rent / damages on account of delayed possession; 33,000 towards litigation expenses with miscellaneous expenses of 15,000 and interest @18% p.a., on the amounts deposited by her with the Respondent. Possession of the flat, complete in all respects, was also prayed for.

3. The Respondent remained unrepresented before the State Commission and was therefore, proceeded against ex parte. On appraisal of the material placed on record by the Complainant, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that undoubtedly there has been a delay in completion and delivery of the possession of the said flat. Accordingly, relying on Clause 30 of the letter of allotment dated 16.11.2009, the State Commission has directed the Respondent to pay to the Complainant a compensation / penalty @ Rs. 5 per sq. ft. of the super area per month for the period from 1.7.2009 to 30.6.2014. The State Commission has, however, rejected the claim of the Complainant that in the absence of any circumstances, which could be considered as a force majeure condition, she was entitled to interest @18% p.a. on the amount already deposited, instead of a compensation / penalty @ Rs. 5 per sq. ft. The State Commission has directed that if the amounts, mentioned in para 1(supra) are not paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, interest @ 12% p.a. shall be payable on the said amounts from 9.11.2013 till realisation. Hence, the present Appeal. The Respondent / Developer seems to be satisfied with the directions issued in the impugned order.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

5. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by le