STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Amit Kumar Gupta, aged 46 years, son of Amrit Lal Gupta, 3056, Gupta Nursing Home, 2-A, Power House Road, Bathinda, District Bathinda.

…..Decree Holder

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Ltd., SCO 190-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through Rakesh Kerwell, Executive Director.
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Ltd., having its Registered Office at 12th Floor, DLF Gateway Tower, DLF City, Phase-3, NH-8, Gurgaon, through Poonam Madaan, Authorized Representative.

…..Judgment Debtors

BEFORE:           JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                        MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Present through Video Conferencing:-

                             Sh.Mukund Gupta, Advocate for the decree holder.

                             Sh.Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the judgment        debtors.

RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   In the present case, the fact with regard to passing of order dated 04.08.2017 by this Commission, in consumer complaint bearing no.238 of 2017 ordering refund of amount paid alongwith interest @15% p.a.; compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.35,000/- to the decree holder; filing of First Appeal No.1933 of 2017 by the judgment debtors against order dated 04.08.2017, wherein vide order dated 19.09.2018, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dismissed the said appeal; and that feeling aggrieved the judgment debtors went in Civil Appeal Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 on 10.05.2019 (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda etc. etc.), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed the following order is not in dispute:-

 “23. We find that the grant of interest at the rate of 15% by SCDRC is highly excessive. Since in other two set of appeals decided earlier, this Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of refund, therefore, the order of SCDRC stand modified so as to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

24. However, in case any transfer of the flat, such interest will be payable from the date of expiry of three years from the date of agreement or from the date of transfer whichever is later.”

2.                The dispute raised in this execution application by both the parties is as regards calculation of interest w.e.f. 15.01.2014 uptill 26.02.2019, the date on which, the principal amount deposited with this Commission by the judgment debtors was released to the decree holder.

3.                It may be stated here that admittedly, in the present case, the decree holder is a second allottee and had got the unit in question transferred in his name on 15.01.2014. It is also not in dispute that agreement in respect of the unit in question had been executed between the judgment debtors and the original allottee on 11.01.2011. Under these circumstances, since, the present case pertains to refund of the amount paid and not a possession case, and ultimately order passed with regard to refund of the amount paid alongwith interest @9% p.a. has attained finality, as such, the decree holder is entitled to get refund of the entire amount paid by him alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date when unit in question stood transferred in his name i.e. starting from 15.01.2014 (the date of transfer of unit in the name of the decree holder) till the date of its refund.           

4.                The decree holder vide his calculation placed on record is claiming interest @9% per annum on Rs.60,07,980/-, to the tune of Rs.27,67,292/-, for the period from 14.01.2014 to 26.02.2019 and further interest of Rs.2,04,667/- on balance amount of Rs.25,61,850/- for the period 27.02.2019 onwards up-to 17.01.2020.

5.                On the o