Sudip Ahluwalia, Member

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Order dated 04.07.2019 in Consumer Complaint No. 448 of 2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, vide which, the Complaint filed by the Respondent was partly allowed with the following directions -

                   '22. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs. Opposite parties no.1 to 3, jointly and severally, are directed as under: -

                   (i) To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the unit, in question, in favour of the complainant, possession of which had already been delivered on 14.04.2019 during pendency of this complaint, within three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by him to the Registering Authorities.

                   (ii) To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 11.08.2015 (30 months from 12.02.2013, the date, by which 95% of the basic sale price stood received by opposite parties no.1 to 3) till 14.04.2019 (the date when possession delivered), within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. for the entire period aforesaid, till the payment is made.

                   Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are allowed to deduct/adjust the amount of Rs.8.04.407.37ps. payable by the complainant, as referred to above. However, it is made clear that this amount shall be deducted/adjusted out of the total compensation payable by opposite parties no.1 to 3, to the complainant and no interest shall be charged from the complainant on the said amount.

                   (iii) To install lift(s)/elevator(s) in the block/tower, wherein, the unit, in question, is located and also to remove the defects/deficiencies pointed out by the complainant at the time of taking over possession of the unit, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which they shall pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of passing of this order, till realization.

                   (iv) To pay compensation. in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainant, deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a.. from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

                   (v) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a.. from the date of filing this complaint till realization.'

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant/Respondent in December 2011 had booked Flat No. AIFC/FF/489, initially measuring 1425 sq. ft. and later increased to 1646 sq. ft., in the project 'Ambrosia Independent Chandigarh' located at Mullanpur, Punjab, launched by the Opposite Parties/ Appellants No. 1 to 3. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 26,62,902.52/-, out of which the Complainant had paid Rs. 24,92,699.58/- by 12.02.2013 under the down payment plan. Despite this substantial payment, the Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 failed to send the Allotment Letter/Buyer's Agreement for execution. It was only in August 2014, after repeated persuasion, that the Allotment Letter was sent to the Complainant. However, upon receipt, the Complainant found the terms to be one-sided and heavily tilted in favour of the Builder. He returned the document vide letter dated 30.08.2014, requesting amendments to the penalty Clauses and clarification on possession timelines, as no construction had begun even after two and a half years. In response, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 05.09.2014, assured that construction would commence by September 2014. Eventually, the Allotment Letter/Agreement was executed on 23.01.2015, which was more than four years after booking.

3. As per Clause 7(a) of the Agreement, possession was to be delivered within 21 months (including 6 months grace), i.e., by 22.10.2016. However, the possession was not offered despite more than 95% of the basic sale consideration having been paid. It is the case of the Complainant that under the penal Clause, the Builder was liable to compensate him from the date 95% payment was received till actual possession was delivered, in case of delay beyond 24 months. Despite repeated requests, the construction remained incomplete. Subsequently, a letter dated 19.03.2018 was received from the Opposite Parties claiming to offer possession, now describing the Flat as part of 'Ambrosia S+3 (Stilt + 3)' instead of the originally promised 'G+2 (Ground + 2)', and stating that construction was allegedly complete. A demand for Rs. 11,36,042.60/- was also raised in the enclosed Statement of Account, which the Complainant found to include several illegal charges. 4. It is the Complainant's grievance that the area of the Flat was increased by more than 15% without his consent. Further, Rs. 98,263.33/- was levied for stilt parking without any separate garage, and Rs. 3,19,382.94/- towards Corner PLC (Preferential Location Charges), despite the unit losing its corner status due to installation of water tanks, a large basement, manholes, and a water pump adjacent to it, rendering the location unsafe. Additionally, no lift was provided. Despite taking up these issues, the Opposite Parties failed to address the grievances and kept pressuring the Complainant to pay the outstanding amount. The Complainant thereafter got issued a Legal Notice dated 24.07.2018, followed by several letters and emails, seeking withdrawal of illegal demands, completion of development work, delivery of possession, and compensation for the delay, but to no avail. Aggrieved with the same, he filed his Complaint before the Ld. State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh.

5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants and Respondent, and perused the material available on record.

6. Ld. Counsel for Appellants has argued that during the pendency of the Complaint, the Complainant took possession of the subject Flat, and a letter dated 01.11.2019 was issued by the Appellants asking the Complainant to complete the formalities for registration. The present Appeal is confined to challenging the compensation awarded by the State Commission, particularly the direction to pay interest at 12% p.a. on the total deposited amount, with 15% p.a. in case of default. It is the Appellants' case that possession was offered on 19.03.2018 upon obtaining the Occupancy Certificate (OC), but the Complainant delayed acceptance until 14.04.2019. The State Commission, however, wrongly awarded compensation until the date of acceptance rather than limiting it to the date of offer after obtaining OC; That compensation for delay beyond 19.03.2018 is unjustified and incentivises delay on part of the Allottee; That this Commission, as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, have recognized the downward trend in interest rates and has accordingly moderated delay compensation in recent decisions. Reliance is placed on 'Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Harish Chawla, Civil Appeal No. 4472-75/2019', wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that interest at 12% was excessive and reduced it to 8% p.a., considering the prevailing market conditions. Moreover, in cases where possession has already been delivered, this Commission has typically awarded compensation at the rate of 6% p.a.

7. Ld. Counsel for Appellants has further argued that the State Commission erred in awarding compensation under multiple heads such as mental harassment and litigation expenses, despite the grievance arising solely from delay in possession. Reliance is placed on 'DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4910-4941/2019', where the Hon'ble Supreme Court disapproved of awarding compensation under overlapping heads for the same cause of action; That the Complainant has failed to lead any evidence of actual loss suffered due to delay, such as rent receipts or proof of alternate accommodation. The Complainant, a resident of Kurukshetra with no employment ties to Mohali or the vicinity, had booked the Flat solely for investment purposes, and hence cannot claim compensatory damages without establishing loss. Further, the State Commission failed to account for the appreciation in value of the property over time. The booking rate was Rs. 1497.55/- per sq. ft., whereas the current market rate is Rs. 2772/-per sq. ft., nearly double, thereby substantially offsetting any notional loss to the Complainant. In these circumstances, the Appellants pray that the compensation awarded by the State Commission be suitably modified in accordance with settled legal principles.

8. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the Opposite Parties/Appellants had themselves admitted in Para 30 of their Written Statement before the State Commission that some interior paint and plastering work was still on going in the Flat, corroborating the Complainant's grievance that the possession letter dated 19.03.2018 was premature and issued despite incomplete construction. This is further evident from the said possession letter, which candidly states that the development work was only 'on the verge of completion'. Photographs evidencing the unfinished condition were also supplied by the Complainant; That even as of date, several deficiencies identified at the time of possession remain unrectified. Most prominent among them being the failure to demarcate parking areas, which has led to disputes among the unit occupants. These continuing lapses affirm the validity of the reliefs granted by the State Commission. The direction of the State Commission awarding compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. from the due date till the date of actual possession, and directing the Builder to remove the deficiencies including installation of lifts, is fully justified and in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'H.P. Housing Board v. Janak Gupta, (2009) INSC 627', where the compensation @12% p.a. in delayed possession cases was upheld.

9. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has further argued that where the Builder charges 24% p.a. interest from Allottees in case of delay in payment, it is equitable that the Builder be directed to pay at least 12% p.a. interest for delay in handing over possession. In fact, the principle of parity would justify an equivalent rate. Reliance is placed on 'M/s Ashoka Investment Co. v. M/s United Towers India Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 4913 of 2015', wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Allottees are entitled to claim the same rate of interest for delay that is stipulated against them in the Agreement. Accordingly, the directions of the State Commission are just, fair, and warrant no interference.

10. It is not in dispute that despite receiving more than 95% of the basic sale consideration by February 2013, the Appellants delayed execution of the Allotment Letter until January 2015 and failed to deliver possession within the stipulated period of 21 months as provided in Clause 7(a) of the Agreement. The evidence on record, including the Appellants' own admissions in the Written Statement and the terms of the possession letter dated 19.03.2018, corroborates that even by that date, construction and amenities were incomplete. The admitted fact that the lifts had not been installed and several deficiencies remained unresolved till after possession further establishes continued deficiency. Accordingly, the finding of the State Commission holding the Appellants guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not warrant interference.

11. However, we are persuaded to accept the Appellants' submission that the compensation awarded in the form of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the entire deposited amount from the deemed date of possession, i.e. 11.08.2015 until actual possession, i.e. 14.04.2019, along with an additional 15% p.a. in case of default, is excessive and requires modification. This Commission as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions such as 'Surat Singh & Anr. v. M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd., CC/1085/2019', 'Deepak Jairamdas Gulabani & Anr. v. Prathesh Developers, CC/2020/2016' and 'DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Dr. Shipra Tripathi & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1742 of 2022', has consistently held that where the possession has already been taken by the Allottee, the appropriate and just compensation for delayed possession is in the form of interest at 6% p.a. on the amount deposited, from the promised date of possession till the date of valid offer of possession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further emphasized that Consumer Fora ought to avoid grant of overlapping compensation under multiple heads for the same cause of action.

12. In the light of the aforesaid precedents and the fact that the Complainant has already taken possession of the subject Unit, we are of the view that the award of interest at 12% p.a. along with penal interest and separate compensation for mental agony and harassment cannot be sustained. Following the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda & Ors.,' (supra), the reliefs are liable to be consolidated into a singular award of compensation by way of interest at 6% p.a. on the amounts deposited by the Complainant, from 22.10.2016 (the outer limit for possession as per agreement) till 19.03.2018 (the date of valid offer of possession).

13. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed. The directions contained in the impugned Order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the Ld. State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 448 of 2018, are modified to the following extent -

                   (i) The Appellants shall pay to the Complainant interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the total deposited amount, from 22.10.2016 till 19.03.2018, after adjusting any outstanding dues legally payable by the Complainant.

                   (ii) The direction to pay separate compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation costs is modified. Instead, a lump sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards litigation expenses.

                   (iii) The directions relating to execution of the Sale Deed and removal of deficiencies including installation of lift(s), as directed by the Ld. State Commission, are upheld and shall be complied with within two months from the date of this Order.

                   (iv) In the event of non-compliance with this modified Order within the stipulated period, the amounts due shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for any outstanding amount(s). All other findings of the State Commission, to the extent not modified herein, are affirmed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.