ORDER (ORAL)         

          The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party”) against the order dated 20.03.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short ‘the State

-2-

Commission”) dismissing the Appeal No.75 of 2013.  The Appeal had been filed by the Opposite Party against the order dated 06.08.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short “the District Forum” in Complaint No.939 of 2010.

2.      The brief admitted facts of the case are that the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) purchased a flat from Smt. Krishna Devi on 20.05.2006.  As per the contention in the Complaint, the due date of delivery of possession to the Complainant was 31.01.2007.  The possession was handed over to the Complainant on 15.04.2008.  Since there was a delay in handing over the possession, the Complainant had filed the Complaint.

3.      Several contentions had been raised by the Opposite Party.

4.      Parties led their evidences before the District Forum.  After perusing the file and hearing at length the arguments of learned Counsels for the parties, the District Forum reached to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and issued the following directions:

“10.     ………  Thus as the complainant is owner of the property in dispute as per Conveyance Deed he is entitled to penalty @ ₹10/- per sq. ft. per month for the period of 24 months which comes to ₹9,06,204/- with

-3-

interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till today and @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  He is further entitled to ₹5,000/- as litigation expenses.”

5.      This order of the District Forum was impugned by the Opposite Party before the State Commission.  The State Commission after re-appreciating and re-assessing the evidences on record, confirmed the finding of the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and confirmed the order of the District Forum. 

6.      This order is impugned before me by the Opposite Party alleging that there is an error in the impugned order whereby they had been directed to pay delay compensation for the period of                    24 months.  It is argued that as per the contention in the Complaint itself, the due date of delivery of possession was 31.01.2007 and the possession had been handed over on 15.04.2008 and therefore, their liability to pay the delay compensation can at most  be for this period only.  It is further argued that the award of interest @ 18% p.a. and besides that interest @ 9% p.a. is towards higher side and against canons of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court and therefore the impugned order needs modification.  On these contentions, it is prayed that the impugned order be modified to this effect.

-4-

7.      Learned Counsel for the Complainant does not dispute that as per the contention in the Complaint, the due date of possession was 31.01.2007 and the possession was delivered on 15.04.2008.

8.      I have perused the file.  There are concurrent findings of the Foras below on the point of deficiency in service on the part