NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/899/2018 (Against the Order dated 15th March 2018 in Complaint 823/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab)

WITH NC/IA/10129/2018 (PLACING ADDL. DOCUMENTS)

HOUSEFED PUNJAB .......Appellant(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER SCO NO 150 Versus BALVIR SINGH .......Respondent(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - RESIDNET OF VILLAGE LOHARI KALAN P.O DHUNDA TEHS BEFORE:

HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA AVSM VSM RETD. , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA , MEMBER DATED: 27/01/2026 ORDER BEFORE :

HON’BLE AVM J RAJENDRA AVSM VSM (Retd.,) PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA MEMBER For the Appellant Appearance Not Marked For the Respondents Mr Himanshu Gupta, Advocate (VC)

Dated : 27.01.2026 ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. The issue falls in a narrow compass that the complainant/respondent seeks refund of the amount deposited towards the flat in question. While the parties entered into an agreement with respect to the application no.913 for a 3 BHK flat and allotment letter was issued vide allotment letter dated 22.02.2009. The dispute arose between the parties and the complainant filed CC no.823 of 2017 before the State Commission.

3. The learned State Commission vide order dated 15.03.2018 directed the opposite party to refund the amount deposited by the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt till the date of actual payment after deducting 10% of the total price of the flat.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant/ opposite party is a non-profit organization and detailed procedures are for compliance are followed in the matter, therefore, refund of 12% per annum was excessive since large number of other similarly placed families are involved in this project.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant states that opposite party has been charging 15% of the amount awarded by the State Commission is appropriate and seeks that the same be confirmed.

’

6. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and perusal of records, the Honble Supreme Court in Experion Developers (P) Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 416, decided on

07.04.2022, has held that:

“

We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the Order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit. We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interest shall be payable from the dates of such deposits. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just and we find no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by the ”

consumer for enhancement of interest.

7. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties, we direct the appellant/opposite party to refund the amount deposited by the Complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the actual payment, after deducting 10% of the sale price of the flat. This amount shall be paid within a period of 60 days from today. In the event of delay the interest liability for the entire period shall be @

12% per annum.

8. Considering the endeavor made by both the parties, there shall be no order as to costs.

9. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

AVM J. RAJENDRA AVSM VSM RETD.

PRESIDING MEMBER

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

MEMBER