DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD versus D.S. DHANDA, ETC. ETC. on 10 May 2019

[2019] 7 S.C.R. 1061

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD

v.

D.S. DHANDA, ETC. ETC.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019)

MAY 10, 2019

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND

HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Respondents-Complainantsbooked built up flats for purchase in one of the project of theappellant – Buyer’s Agreements executed– Possession of the unitwas to be delivered within 24 months from the date of execution ofthe agreement, failing which the appellant was liable to pay Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month for the period of delay – Complaints filedbefore State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC)alleging delay in delivery of possession – Appellant inter alia pleadedthat construction could not be completed because of the stay onconstruction granted by Supreme Court which opearted for about8 months – SCDRC directed the appellant to hand over the physicalpossession of the units allotted to the respondents, complete in allrespects within four months – National Consumer Dispute RedressalCommission (NCDRC) partially modified the order – On appeal,held: There is no surviving dispute in respect of extended period ofhanding over possession available to the appellant i.e 36 months,in view of the consent it obtained from the respondents to extendthe period of handing over possession further by one year– It iscategorical stand of the appellant that the flats have been completedand occupation certificate has also been obtained – SCDRC andNCDRC awarded compensation under multiple heads on accountof singular default of not handing over possession–For delay inhanding over possession, the consumer is entitled to theconsequences agreed at the time of executing buyer’s agreement –Though the 1986 Act empowers the authorities to awardcompensation for any loss or injury including building damagesbut the order of NCDRC or SCDRC awarding compensation is byrule of thumb, without any foundation on judicially recognisedprinciples – Complainant entitled to interest as offered, for not

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

Ahanding over possession, but present is not a case to award specialpunitive damages as one of the causes for late delivery of possessionwas beyond the control of the appellant – In view of the settlementproposal submitted by the appellant in earlier two set of appealsbefore Supreme Court in respect of the same project and to settleany further controversy, directions issued to the appellant.B

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Respondents-Complainantsbooked built up flats for purchase in one of the project of theappellant – Amount deposited by the respondents – Delay in deliveryof possession of the flats – Award of interest – Held: Amount ofinterest is the compensation to the beneficiary deprived of the useCof the investment made by the complainant – Therefore, such interestwill take into its ambit, the consequences of delay in not handingover possession.

Words & Phrases – “Interest” – Meaning of – Discussed.

DDisposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The similar dispute in respect of same projectcame up for decision before Supreme Court in DLF HomesPanchkula Pvt. Ltd. and Another Etc. v. Himanshu Arora andAnother, Etc.. The said set of appeals were decided on consentEgranting interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Subsequently,another set of appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 2285-2330 of 2019 titledDLF Homes Panchkula (P.) Ltd. vs. Sushila Devi and Another cameup for decision before Supreme Court including appeals filed bythe Appellants as well as by the Complainants. Such appeals werealso decided by consent. [Paras 6, 7] [1070-C-E]F

1.2 The appellant offered for built up 1775 flats in its projectthe DLF Valley in Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex,Panchkula, Haryana. Some of the disputes settled in earlier tworounds of appeals, whereas, many complaints are still pendingbefore different fora. There is no surviving dispute in respect ofGextended period of handing over possession available to theAppellant i.e. 36 months. By virtue of such extended period, thepossession was required to be handed over on or about11.02.2014. It is categorical stand of the Appellant that the flatshave been completed and occupation certificate obtained from H

the Office of Director, Town and Country Planning Departmentof State of Haryana. The NCDRC rightly held that compensationfor loss, mental agony, litigation expenses and hardship,uncertainty and helplessness can neither be meagre norexorbitant but has to be just and commensurate with the loss andinjury. [Paras 12-14] [1072-B-D]

1.3 The District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 is empowered inter-alia to order the opposite party to paysuch amount as may be awarded as compensation to the consumerfor any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to thenegligence of the opposite party including to grant punitivedamages. But the forums under the Act cannot award interestand/or compensation by applying rule of thumb. The order togrant interest at the maximum of rate of interest charged bynationalised bank for advancing home loan is arbitrary and nonexus with the default committed. The appellant has agreed todeliver constructed flats. For delay in handing over possession,the consumer is entitled to the consequences agreed at the timeof executing buyer’s agreement. There cannot be multiple headsto grant of damages and interest when the parties have agreedfor payment of damages at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month.Once the parties agreed for a particular consequence of delay inhanding over of possession then, there has to be exceptional andstrong reasons for the SCDRC/NCDRC to award compensationat more than the agreed rate. Though the 1986 Act empowersthe authorities to award compensation for any loss or injuryincluding building damages but the order of NCDRC or that ofSCDRC of awarding compensation is without any foundation beinglaid down by the complainant on judicially recognised principlesand is by rule of thumb. Therefore, grant of compensation undervarious heads granted by the NCDRC cannot be sustained. Theamount of the interest is the compensation to the beneficiarydeprived of the use of the investment made by the complainant.Therefore, such interest will take into its ambit, the consequencesof delay in not handing over his possession. The SCDRC as wellas NCDRC awarded compensation under different heads onaccount of singular default of not handing over possession. Suchaward under various heads in respect of the same default is not A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asustainable. Thus, the complainant is entitled to interest fromthe Appellant for not handing over possession as projected as isoffered by it but it is not a case to award special punitive damagesas the one of the causes for late delivery of possession was beyondthe control of the Appellant. Therefore, in view of the settlementproposal submitted by the Appellant in earlier two set of appealsBin respect of same project, and to settle any further controversy,the Appellant is directed as follows: i) To send a copy of theoccupation certificate to the Complainants along with offer ofpossession. The Appellant shall also direct the Jones LangLaSalle- the real estate maintenance agency, engaged by theCAppellant to undertake such maintenance works as is necessaryon account of damage due to non-occupation of the flats afterconstruction etc. ii) It shall be open to the Complainants to seekthe assistance of the maintenance agency to attend to themaintenance work which may arise on account of non-occupation

or on account of natural vagaries. iii) Such maintenance workDshall be completed by the Appellant within two months of theoffer of possession but the payment of interest at the rate of 9per cent per annum will be for a period of two months from thedate of offer of possession in all situations. iv) Since theComplainants have been forced to invoke jurisdiction of theEconsumer forums, they shall be entitled to consolidated amountof Rs. 50,000/- in each complaint on all accounts such as mentalagony and litigation expenses etc. The complainant shall not beentitled to any other amount over and above the amountmentioned above. v) In case, the original allottee has transferredthe flat, the transferee shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9Fper cent per annum from the date of expiry of three years fromthe agreement or from the date of transfer, whichever is later.[Paras 16-19] [1072-H; 1073-A-H; 1074-A-G]

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4942-4945 OF 2019

G(@SLP (C) Nos. 4363-4366 of 2019)

1.4 The grant of interest at the rate of 15% by SCDRC ishighly excessive. Since in other two set of appeals decided earlier,Supreme Court had awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annumon the amount of refund, therefore, the order of SCDRC stand H

modified so as to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum fromthe date of deposit till the date of refund. However, in case anytransfer of the flat, such interest will be payable from the date ofexpiry of three years from the date of agreement or from thedate of transfer whichever is later. The Costs of Rs. 35,000/-imposed by the SCDRC is maintained. The amount of refund bepaid to the Complainants within two months along with the costs.[Paras 23-27] [1075-E-G]

Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa& Others vs. G.C. Roy (1992) 1 SCC 508 : [1991] 3Suppl. SCR 417 – relied on.

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. And Another Etc.v. Himanshu Arora and Another, Etc. [2019] 7SCALE 678 ; DLF Homes Panchkula (P.) Ltd. v. SushilaDevi and Another [2019] 2 SCR 739 – referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019.

From the Judgment and Orders dated 24.10.2018 and 12.12.2018of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhiin First Appeal Nos. 853, 1144, 1237, 1239, 1240, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309,1310, 1311, 1312, 1314, 1356, 854 and 855 of 2016.

With

C.A. Nos. 4942-4945 of 2019.

C. U. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Seema Sundd,Prabhat Ranjan, Alabhya Dhamija, Ms. Shreyansi Goel, Pravin Bahadur,Nakul Gandhi, Saurabh Kumar, Sanjeet Ranjan, Sahil Monga, Ms. SonaliJain (for M/S. Karanjawala & Co.), Advs. for the Appellant.

Amarjeet Singh, Narender Yadav, Savinder Singh, Anant Agarwal,Ms. Sweta Rani, Rajesh Sharda, Akshay Sharma, Nikilesh A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ARamachandran, Ms. Isha Aggarwal, Sachin Jain, Dr. Rau PS Girwar,Ms. Archana Arora, Ms. Shashi Kiran, Arjun Sain, Manoj Jain, Advs.for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.BCIVIL APPEAL NOS.4910-4941 OF 2019

(@ SLP(C) Nos. 3623-3654 OF 2019)

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals are directed against orders datedC24.10.2018 & 12.12.2018 passed by the National Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission[1] disposing 16 First Appeals wherein the appealsfiled by the Appellant were decided by partially modifying the orderpassed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission[2] on02.06.2016 wherein SCDRC directed the Appellant to hand over theDphysical possession of the units allotted to the respondents (Complainants),complete in all respects within a period of four months. However, forfacility of reference, facts are taken from the complaint filed by ShriD.S. Dhanda. The SCDRC issued the following directions:

“Consumer Complaint bearing No. 94 of 2016, titled as D.S.EDhanda Vs DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr.Theopposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To hand over physical possession of the unit, allotted in favourof the complainant, complete in all respects, as per the termsand conditions of the Agreement, to the complainant, within aFperiod of four months, from the date of receipt of a certifiedcopy of this order, on payment of the amount, legally dueagainst him.

2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of theunit, in question, within one month from the date of handlingGover possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on paymentof registration charges and stamp duty, by the complainant,directly to the Registering Authorities concerned.

ETC. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @ 12% p.a., on thedeposited amount, to the complainant, from 10.02.2014(promised date in view of the extension sought vide letterdated 05.06.2013 i.e. 12 months after the stipulated date asper Agreement i.e. from 10.02.2013) to 31.05.2016, within 2months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of thisorder, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest@ 15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., till realization.

A

B

4. To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on thedeposited amount, due to the complainant w.e.f. 01.06.2016,onwards (per month) by the 10[th] of the following month, failingwhich, the same shall also carry penal interest @ 15% p.a.,instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till the deliveryof possession.

C

5. To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on thedeposited amount, due to the complainant w.e.f. 01.06.2016,onwards (per month) by the 10[th] of the following month, failingwhich, the same shall also carry penal interest @ 15% p.a.,instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till the deliveryof possession.

D

6. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-, to thecomplainant, within two months from the date of receipt of acertified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall alsocarry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complainttill realization.”

E

3. The Appellant preferred appeal against such order passed bySCDRC before the NCDRC. The NCDRC issued inter-alia the followingdirections:

F

“(C) Compensation:

The compensation for loss and injury, for mental agony and physicalharassment, hardship and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness,Gcan be neither meagre nor exorbitant, but has to be just andequitable, commensurate with the loss and injury (note: it could beless than or more than what the complainant asked for or whatthe State Commission determined, at the considered wisdom of H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

the adjudicating authority/court in the facts and specificities ofthe case).

And it is always desirable and preferable, to the extent feasibleand appropriate in the facts and specificities of a case, that someobjective logical criteria be identified and adopted to determinethe compensation. The compensation cannot be arbitrary orwhimsical, some reasonable and acceptable rational has to beevident subjectivity has to be minimized.

We note that the State Commission has given compensation intwo parts, one, by way of interest on the deposited amount fromthe ‘promised’/ assured date after taking in view the extensionsought vide letter dated 05.06.2013 i.e. 12 months after the 24months’ conveyed and understood time period for completingconstruction and handling over possession, and, two, a lumpsumamount.

If compensation comprises of two parts, (i) by way of interest onthe deposited amount from the assured date (milestone date) ofcompleting construction and handling over possession to the actualdate of handling over possession, and, (ii) lumpsum amount, wefind nothing wrong in it.

We do not agree with the builder co.’s contentions that interest onthe deposited amount should not be provided since it is not a caseof refund but a case of delay in possession. The interest on thedeposited amount has to be viewed in the light of the purpose forwhich it is intended. It is but a way of computing compensationfor delay in possession that is commensurate with the amountdeposited by the complainant, and here it has been computed afteradopting a milestone date as per the builder co.’s own (unfair anddeceptive) letter of 05.06.2013. There can be and is no questionof not agreeing to an endorsing the award of interest from thesaid milestone date.

Here we may however add that the rate of interest also cannotbe arbitrary or whimsical, some reasonable and acceptablerationale has to be evident, subjectivity has to be minimized, alogical correlation has to be established. Albeit detailed arithmeticor algebra is not required. Logical (to the extent feasible) objective parameters should be adopted. Rounding off simplification etc. tomake the computation doable could be adopted.

We feel it appropriate that, considering that the subject units inquestion are dwelling units, in a residential housing project, therate of interest for house building loan for the corresponding periodin a scheduled nationalized bank (take, State Bank of India) wouldbe appropriate and logical, and , if ‘floating’/ varying/differentrates of interest were/ are prescribed, the higher rate of interestshould be taken for this instant computation.

We also feet it appropriate and logical that the lumpsum amountawarded should be commensurate with the period for which therehas been delay in possession beyond the milestone date, and beobjectively and logically computed so.

In our considered view, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh per yearfrom theassured date of handing over possession to the actual date ofpossession (pro-rata to the nearest whole month, with part monthto be taken as one month) would be objective, logical, just andequitable in the facts and specificities of the case.

(D) Cost of litigation:

In respect of cost of litigation, too, just and equitable cost isnecessary (this, by its very nature needs no elaboration).

In our considered view, cost of litigation of Rs. 1 lakh is just andappropriate in the facts and specificities of the case.”

4. The Complainant book a built up flat for purchase in pursuanceof a brochure on 30.03.2010 in a project known as “DLF Valley” inSector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex, Panchkula, Haryana. TheBuyer’s Agreement was executed on 11.02.2011. The possession of theunit was contemplated to be delivered within 24 months from the date ofexecution of the agreement i.e. up to 10.2.2013 failing which the Appellantwas liable to pay Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month for the period of delay.The complaints were filed before the SCDRC alleging delay in deliveryof possession of the escalation free flats and compensation on accountof delay in handing over possession including mental agony and litigationexpenses etc.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A5. In the return, the stand of the Appellant was, construction couldnot be completed on account of stay granted on construction activitiesby this Court which operated from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012. Thereafter,the Appellant sought consent from the Complainant to extend the periodof handing over possession by one year vide letter dated 05.06.2013. Inthe alternative, option was given to get back the money deposited by theBComplainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent perannum. It is also pointed out that on the day reply was filed, constructionof 258 independent floors was complete and another 1517 built-up unitswere near completion. Even occupation certificate has been receivedfor the units for which construction was complete.

C

6. The similar dispute in respect of same project came up fordecision before this Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. andAnother Etc. v. Himanshu Arora and Another, Etc.[3]. The said setof appeals were decided on consent granting interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum.

D

7. Subsequently, another set of appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 2285-2330 of 2019 titled DLF Homes Panchkula (P.) Ltd. vs. SushilaDevi and Another came up for decision before this Court includingappeals filed by the Appellants as well as by the Complainants. Suchappeals were also decided by consent. The agreed terms are as under:

E

“(a) In all Refund cases, the award of interest @ 9% would bepayable in respect of deposits from the day they were made tillthe date of refund.

(b) In cases where, upon transfer, a subsequent purchaser hadstepped into the shoes of the original allottee and had prayed forFRefund, the reckoning date for computing the interest be from thedate of his transfer in respect of all the amounts that were depositedby the original allottee and if any subsequent deposits were madeby the transferee, from the dates of such deposits;

(c) In cases where Possession was sought, the period available toGthe Developer under the agreement being three years (that is tosay original period of two years which was extendable, at theoption of the Developer, by further period of one year) ought notto be computed while calculating compensation in the form of 3 C.A No. 11097/2018 with C.A. Nos. 11098-11138 of 2018 decided on 19.11.2018H

interest. Therefore, the period to be reckoned shall be after expiryof three years from the date of agreement and in respect of suchperiod the compensation shall be at the same rate of 9%.

(d) In Possession cases, if there was any transfer and thetransferee had stepped into the shoes of the original allottee, thecompensation shall be paid from the date of expiry of three yearsfrom the agreement as aforesaid or from the date of transfer,whichever is later.”

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that interms of the consent orders passed by this Court, the consumercomplaints be decided in terms of the Court orders passed in two sets ofappeals that is the cases of delay in handing over possession as well thecases, where the complainants have sought refund of the amountdeposited. However, it is contended that certain allottees are not takingpossession so as to earn interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annumwhich is more than a contractual compensation of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. permonth for the delayed possession as well as the loss of rent per monthpleaded by the allottees such as D.S. Dhanda (F.A. No. 853/2016),Sandeep Malik (F.A. No. 1312/2016), Bijender Singh Sangwan (F.A.No. 1314/2016), Kanwal Mohan (F.A. No. 1356/2016).

9. It is contended that since the rental value is not more than thecompensation awarded by this Court in the consent order referred toabove, therefore, some of the allottees are intentionally not takingpossession so as to continue to earn interest under the guise that it is theAppellant who is not handing over the possession. It is contended that interms of the chart produced in Sushila Devi’s case (supra), 9 per centinterest is payable till two months after offer of possession though suchclause does not find specifically mentioned in the order passed by thisCourt.

10. It is argued that the Appellant will hand over possession onlyafter obtaining occupancy certificate from the Town and CountryPlanning Department of the State of Haryana and after ensuring thatthe maintenance works are taken care of by Jones Lang LaSalle - theinternational real estate maintenance agency.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the allottees arguedthat the possession is being offered of incomplete building and that allottees A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aare entitled to compensation on account of the mental agony and litigationexpenses awarded by SCDRC and as modified by NCDRC.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find thatthe appellant offered for built up 1775 flats in its project the DLF Valleyin Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex, Panchkula, Haryana. SomeBof the disputes settled in earlier two rounds of appeals, whereas, manycomplaints are still pending before different fora.

13. There is no surviving dispute in respect of extended period ofhanding over possession available to the Appellant i.e. 36 months. Byvirtue of such extended period, the possession was required to be handedCover on or about 11.02.2014. The present set of appeals relates to theComplainants claiming possession of the flats allotted to them in theDLF Valley. It is categorical stand of the Appellant that the flats havebeen completed and occupation certificate obtained from the Office ofDirector, Town and Country Planning Department of State of Haryana.

D14. The learned NCDRC rightly held that compensation for loss,mental agony, litigation expenses and hardship, uncertainty andhelplessness can neither be meagre nor exorbitant but has to be just andcommensurate with the loss and injury. After holding so, the learnedNCDRC found that the Complainants are not entitled to stipulated amounton account of delay in handing over possession but damages on theEamount deposited apart from interest on the amount so deposited.

D

15. A perusal of the order passed by NCDRC shows that itapproved the directions of the SCDRC granting interest on the amountdeposited from the assured date and a lumpsum compensation on thedeposited amount from the assured date of completing construction andFhanding over possession to the actual date of handing over possession.The NCDRC thereafter awarded interest on the amount deposited bythe complainants at the maximum rate of interest on which the HouseBuilding Loans are granted by nationalized Bank such as the State Bankof India; awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per year from the assuredGdate of handing over possession to the actual date of compensation andanother sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost of litigation.

16. The District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986[4]is empowered inter-alia to order the opposite party to pay such amountas may be awarded as compensation to the consumer for any loss or H4 1986 Act

injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the oppositeparty including to grant punitive damages. But the forums under the Actcannot award interest and/or compensation by applying rule of thumb.The order to grant interest at the maximum of rate of interest chargedby nationalised bank for advancing home loan is arbitrary and no nexuswith the default committed. The appellant has agreed to deliverconstructed flats. For delay in handing over possession, the consumer isentitled to the consequences agreed at the time of executing buyer’sagreement. There cannot be multiple heads to grant of damages andinterest when the parties have agreed for payment of damages at therate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month. Once the parties agreed for aparticular consequence of delay in handing over of possession then, therehas to be exceptional and strong reasons for the SCDRC/NCDRC toaward compensation at more than the agreed rate.

17. Though the 1986 Act empowers the authorities to awardcompensation for any loss or injury including building damages but theorder of NCDRC or that of SCDRC of awarding compensation is withoutany foundation being laid down by the complainant on judicially recognisedprinciples and is by rule of thumb. Therefore, we find that grant ofcompensation under various heads granted by the NCDRC cannot besustained.

18. This Court in a judgment reported as Secretary, IrrigationDepartment, Government of Orissa & Others vs. G.C. Roy[5]examined the question as to whether an arbitrator has the power toaward interest pendente lite. It was held that a person deprived of use ofmoney to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensatedfor the deprivation which may be called interest, compensation ordamages. Thus, keeping in view the said principle laid down in theaforesaid judgment, the amount of the interest is the compensation tothe beneficiary deprived of the use of the investment made by thecomplainant. Therefore, such interest will take into its ambit, theconsequences of delay in not handing over his possession. In fact, wefind that the learned SCDRC as well as NCDRC has awardedcompensation under different heads on account of singular default ofnot handing over possession. Such award under various heads in respectof the same default is not sustainable.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A

A19. Thus, we find that the complainant is entitled to interest fromthe Appellant for not handing over possession as projected as is offeredby it but it is not a case to award special punitive damages as the one ofthe causes for late delivery of possession was beyond the control of theAppellant. Therefore, in view of the settlement proposal submitted bythe Appellant in earlier two set of appeals in respect of same project,Band to settle any further controversy, the Appellant is directed as follows:

i) To send a copy of the occupation certificate to the Complainantsalong with offer of possession. The Appellant shall also direct theJones Lang LaSalle - the real estate maintenance agency, engagedby the Appellant to undertake such maintenance works as isnecessary on account of damage due to non-occupation of theflats after construction etc.

C

ii) It shall be open to the Complainants to seek the assistance ofthe maintenance agency to attend to the maintenance work whichmay arise on account of non-occupation or on account of naturalDvagaries.

iii) Such maintenance work shall be completed by the Appellantwithin two months of the offer of possession but the payment ofinterest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum will be for a period oftwo months from the date of offer of possession in all situations.

E

v) Since the Complainants have been forced to invoke jurisdictionof the consumer forums, they shall be entitled to consolidatedamount of Rs. 50,000/- in each complaint on all accounts such asmental agony and litigation expenses etc. The complainant shallnot be entitled to any other amount over and above the amountFmentioned above.

vi) In case, the original allottee has transferred the flat, thetransferee shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent perannum from the date of expiry of three years from the agreementor from the date of transfer, whichever is later.

GCIVIL APPEAL NOS.4942-4945 OF 2019

(@SLP (C) Nos. 4363-4366 of 2019)

20. Leave granted.

H

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD v. D.S. DHANDA, ETC.ETC. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

21. The Complainant in these cases have sought refund of theamount deposited by them with the Appellant. The learned SCDRCpassed an order on 04.08.2017 directing the Appellant as under:- “i. To refund the amounts of Rs. 49,25,461/- alongwith simpleinterest @ 15% per annum, to the complainant, from the respectivedates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date ofreceipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the OppositeParties shall pay the aforesaid amounts alongwith simple interest@ 18% per annum, instead of 15% per annum, from the date ofdefault till actual payments;

ii. To pay an amount of Rs. 35,000/- as litigation costs, to thecomplainant, within a period of 45 days from the date of receiptof a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Partiesshall pay the aforesaid amount alongwith simple interest @ 15%per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment.”

22. The appeal filed by the Appellant before NCDRC wasdismissed for non-compliance of an order in an application of condonationof delay. Still aggrieved, the Appellants are before this Court.

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

24. However, in case any transfer of the flat, such interest will bepayable from the date of expiry of three years from the date of agreementor from the date of transfer whichever is later.

25. The Costs of Rs. 35,000/- imposed by the SCDRC ismaintained.

26. The amount of refund be paid to the Complainants within twomonths along with the costs.

Divya Pandey

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H