The court affirmed entitlement to interest from deposit dates for delayed possession in consumer transactions, emphasizing the necessity of timely relief.

ORDER

1. The present First Appeal No.580 of 2024 has been filed under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) assailing the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.146 of 2022, wherein the complaint filed by the Complainants was partly allowed.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to in the same manner as before the State Commission. Mr. Vikas Jain and Ms. Mona Garg are the Complainants (Appellants herein), and Ansal Housing Ltd. is the Opposite Party (Respondent herein).

3. Briefly facts of the case are that the Complainants, have applied for allotment of a residential unit in the project “Estella” proposed to be developed by the Opposite Party (OP) in Sector-103, Gurugram, Haryana vide Application dated 25.10.2010. After a lapse of time, the OP issued an Allotment Letter dated 22.06.2012 allotted Unit No.P- 0301 to the Complainants. Thereafter, an Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) was executed between the parties on 20.07.2012. As per Clause 30 of the said Agreement, possession of the unit was to be handed over within 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement or from the date of obtaining the requisite license. Despite payment of a substantial amount of ₹29,92,295.50/-, even before the execution of the Agreement, the OP failed to hand over possession within the stipulated period and continued to fail to deliver possession thereafter. Over a period of time, the Complainants paid ₹96,46,580/- to the OP as demanded. The Complainants contend that the Agreement contained unilateral, arbitrary and one-sided clauses, leaving them with no option but to sign the same. Although the Complainants opted for a construction-linked payment plan, they received demand letters without disclosure of the actual progress of construction and, despite repeated inquiries regarding progress and delivery of possession, no satisfactory response was provided. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay, the Complainants issued a legal notice dated 05.07.2022 seeking refund of the amount, along with interest. This elicited no response. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission.

4. The Opposite Party contested the complaint on the ground of maintainability, contending that the Complainants are not „consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 , alleging that the investment was made for commercial gain and that the Complainants are residing in the USA and therefore lacked bona fide intention to reside in the unit. It was further pleaded that there was no cause of action and that any delay, if at all, was attributable to force majeure circumstances beyond the Opposite Party‟s control, including demonetization, orders of the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court restricting groundwater extraction in Haryana, and directions of the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal halting construction activities in the Delhi-NCR region. The Opposite Party thus denied any delay in possession or deficiency in service.

5. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, the learned State Commission, vide order dated 05.07.2024 allowed the complaint and directed the OP as under: -

“24. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the extensive law as discussed above, we direct the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainants i.e., Rs. 96,46,580/- along with simple interest as per the following arrangement:

A. An interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date on which