ORDER

1.         This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 02.11.2009 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1350 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 11.12.2006 of the District Commission in complaint no. 269 of 1999.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 11.12.2006 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 02.11.2009 of the State Commission and the petition. Learned proxy counsel appearing for the respondent has also made his submissions, on instructions.

3.       This case relates to a builder-buyer dispute. The short point involved is the quantum of compensation on account of delay in handing over possession of the subject residential flat by the petitioners (the ‘builder’) to the respondent (the ‘complainant’).

4.       The matter was earlier considered by this Commission in revision and vide Order dated 22.07.2004 it was remanded to the District Commission for deciding afresh.

The District Commission made a fresh appraisal of the case and vide its Order dated 11.12.2006 made the following award:

In view of this back ground we understand, that the complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month for a period of 4 months of delay in handing over possession. It appears to us from a plain reading of Ex. A 2 agreement, complainant is entitled to Rs. 3,000/- per month until handing over possession of the flat beyond 20^th October, 1998. The actual handing over of the flat was made on 30^th September 2004 as per the joint memo dated 30^th September 2004, which is referred by us already. Since the complainant never asked for payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month until handing over possession of flat, we confine to the period of 4 months as prayed for by the complainant. From the material on record we hold the complainant is entitled to Rs. 12,000/- being amount on account of delay in handing over possession of the flat. Accordingly, this point is answered.

In the result, complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 12,000/- to the complainant being the amount on account of delay over a period of 4 months in handing over the possession of the flat to the complainant.

In appeal the State Commission enhanced the award as below:

Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally an amount representing the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the cost of the flat i.e. Rs. 7,75,250/- from 20-2-1999 to 30-9-2004, the date of actual delivery of possession over and above the relief already granted by the District Forum as this dispensation is in conformity with the Order of the National Commission. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The respondents/opposite parties shall comply with this order within six weeks of the receipt of this order.

5.       We find that the State Commission has passed a well-weighed and well-reasoned Order. After appraising the facts and evidence it has conclusively established the relevant dates and exact period of delay in handing over possession beyond the agreed and assured date and has enhanced the compensation, evidently to meet the scales of equity, by ordering that in addition to the amount of Rs. 12,000/- awarded by the District Commission interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant with the builder shall also be payable to the complainant for the period of delay i.e. from 20.02.1999 to 30.09.2004.

6.       Learned counsel for the builder submits that the additional amount awarded as compensation by the State Commission has been computed in the form of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant. She argues that the said rate of interest of 12% per annum is on the higher side and may be reduced to 9-10% p