ORDER

1.       This appeal under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 11.12.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 14 of 2014.  

We have heard the appellant (the ‘complainant’) in person and the learned counsel for the respondents (the ‘builder’) and have perused the record.

2.       The award as firmed-up by the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 11.12.2018 is being reproduced below for reference:

3.       The builder has not agitated the State Commission’s Order.

The complainant has filed the present appeal to seek enhancement in compensation. His grievance is that the quantum of compensation awarded by the State Commission vide direction no. 3) is grossly on the lower side.

4.       The complainant draws attention to clause 11 of the subject agreement in which it is stated that “The Developers shall give possession of the said Flat to the Flat/Shop Purchaser within 06 months”. He submits that the agreement was executed on 08.09.2009. As such the 06-month period for giving possession elapsed on 07.03.2010. But, as also recorded in para [6] of its Order by the State Commission, the builder could not obtain occupancy certificate and hence could not hand over meaningful legitimate possession of the subject unit to him. He duly paid the total consideration of Rs. 28.45 lakh i.e. Rs. 6,50,000/- on 01.09.2009, Rs. 10,00,000/- & Rs. 8,95,000/- on 12.09.2009 and Rs. 3,00,000/- on 15.06.2011. Possession of the unit has not been handed over to him even after the State Commission has directed that possession along with “occupation certificate and all necessary documents” be handed over within 2 months of its Order. He further submits that the State Commission has awarded only Rs. 1 lakh as compensation which is grossly on the lower side. The normal practice in consumer protection fora is to provide compensation by way of interest at a fair rate on the deposited amount for the period it is unjustly and inequitably retained by a builder i.e. for the period of delay in handing over possession beyond the committed date. In his opinion interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the deposited amount will be fair. He further submits that being a layman in his complaint he had asked for lumpsum Rs. 10 lakh for the mental agony and harassment as also for the delay in handing over possession. Even then the same ought to have been provided with reasonable interest from the date on which the possession had become due i.e. from 07.03.2010 but the State Commission has granted a dismally paltry amount and that too without any interest at all.

5.       Learned counsel for the builder submits that though the commitment period elapsed on 07.03.2010 but the complainant paid the entire amount of the consideration only on 15.06.2011. He also submits that a rate of interest of 6% per annum will be fair and anything above this will be unreasonable.       

6.       Regarding the delay, we may first observe, to place the whole matter in perspective, that prior to, or, at the least, simultaneous to, getting the buyer-consumer to enter into its agreement and accepting the first payment towards the total cost of the subject unit, the builder was required and expected to have the due pragmatic and realistic assessment and preparation of the project planning. It was the prime responsibility of the builder to ensure that it was in a position to deliver the possession of the subject unit to the buyer-consumer within the committed period. Planning, execution and completion were the builder’s responsibility, and not of the consumer; (normal) impediments or problems that may arise in planning, execution and completion were again its own responsibility, and not of the consumer. Specifically, availability of land, as well as all approvals from the concerned government, development and municipal authorities, as and when due, being fundamental basic requirements of a residential housing project, were decidedly to be take