RAJESH SONI Vs. TANEJA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') assails the order dtd. 7/2/2018 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, the 'State Commission') in Complaint Case No. 825 of 2017 whereby the State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party/Respondent herein to refund Rs.19,91,500.00 with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint alongwith Rs.20,000.00 as litigation expenses.

(2.) We have heard the Learned Counsels for both Parties and perused the records.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellant had booked a residential plot of 250 sq.yd in the Respondent's project in Sector-118, Mohali, Punjab and was allotted Plot No.612. The sale consideration of the plot was Rs.17,37,500.00 of which Rs.3,50,000.00 was paid to the Respondent at the time of the booking. A total of Rs.19,91,500.00, including development charges, was paid by the Appellant which included Rs.50,000.00 as penalty for the dishonoring of a cheque for Rs.19,91,500.00 by the bank that had been paid by him under protest. On 25/1/2014 he approached the Respondent for handing over of the possession and followed it up with reminders dtd. 25/2/2014 and 13/5/2014. However, possession was not handed over. Instead, vide letter dtd. 9/1/2016, an alternate plot was offered by the Respondent on the ground that land acquisition proceedings were not complete in respect of the originally allotted plot. Vide letter dtd. 13/4/2017 Respondent conveyed its inability to hand over possession and offered refund with 12% interest. Appellant contends that since Respondent was levying penal interest @ 21% for the delay in payments, the offer was not acceptable and therefore he approached the State Commission by way of a complaint. The State Commission, on contest, held that the Respondent was liable for deficiency of service since legal possession of the said plot had not been provided till date which was beyond the stipulated period. According to the State Commission the OP / Respondent had not given any sufficient reason for the delay and the project appeared to be far from completion. This order is impugned before us by the Appellant praying that the order in Complaint No.825 of 2017 be modified and to award interest on the amount of Rs.19,91,500.00 to be @ 18% p.a. from the dates of various deposits, along with an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs for mental and physical agony.