ORDER

1.   This appeal has been filed under section 51(1) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 06.03.2018 of the State Commission in consumer complaint no. 338 of 2017.

2.    Heard the learned counsel for the appellant society / the opposite parties no.2 and no. 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 / the complainant and perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.

3.       Briefly, as evinces from the appraisal made by the State Commission and the material on record on 26.12.2011 a flat measuring  200 sq. yards was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 26.12.2011. Further, the appellants / opposite parties no. 2 and no. 3 vide its letter dated 18.07.2014 informed the complainant that the project has been handed over to RKM Housing Pvt. Ltd. ( the respondent no.2 herein / opposite party no.1 before the State Commission) in terms of MoU entered between the appellants and the said RKM Housing Pvt. Ltd. / respondent no.2 herein. Thereafter, the said  RKM Housing Pvt. Ltd. / opposite party no.1 sent a letter dated 30.06.2016 for depositing further amount of the subject flat, which is totally unjustified as the opposite parties have miserably failed to hand over the possession of flat within the prescribed period as per the allotment letter. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached before the State Commission for redressal of her grievances.

4.      The State Commission after considering the aspects relating to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice allowed the complaint. The award made by the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 06.03.2018 is reproduced below for the ready reference:

         10.     Sequel to the above, we allow the complaint and directed Ops as under:-:     

(i)         to refund a sum of Rs.19,58,500/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. form the various dates of deposit till actual payment;

(ii)        to pay a sum of  Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant; and

(iii)       to pay Rs. 21,000/- towards litigation expenses.

5.       Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his submission to the extent of assailing only on the point of rate of interest granted on the amount deposited by the complainant and the amount of compensation Rs.1,00,000/- awarded on account of mental and physical harassment.  Submission is that the rate of interest of 12% per annum awarded by the State Commission is on the higher side and the same may be reduced to 6% per annum. He also submits that the additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded to the complainant is also not justified and reasonable in the circumstances of the present case as the complainant has already been adequately compensated by way of interest on her deposited amount, therefore, the additional compensation may be waived off.   

6.       On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1/   complainant submits that rate of interest of 12% per annum as awarded by the State Commission is by no means unreasonable or unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the present case and there is no reason to reduce it. Further submission is that the basis on which the State Commission has awarded the rate of interest of 12% per annum flows from the provisions of Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA) and the award made by the State Commission ought to stand as such.

7.       The Bench has considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. During the course of the arguments the merits of the case or the genuineness of the complainant’s grievances have not come under any serious dispute. The only point of consideration appears to be the adequacy of compensation awarded by the State Comm