JUSTICE A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint and the claim can be disposed off in view of the short submissions that have been raised by the learned counsel for both the parties regarding refund sought on the ground of failure to deliver possession within the time frame of the undisputed allotment conditions contained in the letter dated 20.04.2012 for a residential plot no. 62-C in the project titled Surya Enclave Extension, Jalandhar, Punjab. The plot was promised to be delivered in 2½ years subject to the payment schedule of the scheme floated by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust.
2. The complainant alleges to have made payments to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,369/- and after waiting for long and having cleared all the installments a letter dated 17.03.2015 was sent demanding possession. This was followed by a reminder dated 27.07.2015. In the year 2016, it came to the notice of the complainant that the land was under serious dispute with its erstwhile owners that was engaging the attention of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in writ petitions which according to the opposite parties have been dismissed on 22.12.2015 and the SLPs’ filed against the same before the Supreme Court being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 7198/2016, 7453/2016, 8544/2016, 9808/2016 and 10743/2016 were also dismissed on 29.04.2016.
3. Nonetheless when the matter has been taken up on a mention made by the learned counsel for both sides, it is pointed out that an identical “Consumer Complaint No. 38 of 2016, Ashish Matta Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust” was recently disposed off by this Commission allowing refund with 9% interest on the amount paid from the date of the complaint.
4. The dispute has narrowed down to the rate of interest and the date from which it has to be paid in the light of the judgments compiled and submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant vide written submissions dated 25.09.2023.
5. In “First Appeal No. 995 of 2017, Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. Vs. Pooja Garg”, connected with cross appeal filed by the complainant being “First Appeal No. 1268 of 2017, Pooja Garg Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr.”, this Commission ordered refund in the following terms vide order dated 10.04.2019:-

“25.  We firm-up the award as below:

(i)      The principal amount (total Rs. 38,99,638/-) deposited by the complainant with the improvement trust shall be refunded with interest from the respective date / s of deposit till the date / s of realization.  The rate of interest shall be the rate for house building loan in the corresponding period of a scheduled nationalized bank (take, State Bank of India). If ‘floating’ / varying / different rates of interest were prescribed in the corresponding period, the higher rate shall be taken for this instant computation.

(ii)      In addition, compensation for loss and injury, harassment and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness, shall remain Rs. 3,00,000/-, and cost of litigation shall remain Rs. 20,000/- (as awarded by the State Commission).

All payments shall be made within four weeks of the date of pronouncement of the reasoned judgment. 

Failure in timely compliance shall attract higher / penal interest and other compensation / costs (which shall be determined by this Commission in the facts and specificities of that contingency if it so arises).”

6.       This was followed by another order on the same footing in “First Appeal No. 996 of 2017, Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr. Vs.