ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. Vs. GAURAV MUTNEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Appeal, by the Estate Officer (Housing), Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (for short "GMADA), is to the order dated 10.3.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in CC/140/2016. By the impugned order, while reaching the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants herein in not delivering the possession of the flat in question within the stipulated time and accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, the State Commission has issued the following directions to the Appellants:

(2.) The abovesaid directions be complied within 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of the order, otherwise, entire payment will carry interest @ 8% per annum before 45 days referred above.

(3.) The main ground on which legality and correctness of the said order is questioned is that the State Commission was justified in awarding compensation of 2,00,000/- in addition to interest @ 8% computed annually on the amount deposited by the Complainant, i.e., 63,30,750/- and further the objection now being raised on behalf of the Complainant that the Appellants are entitled to deduct the Income-tax at source (TDS) and Service Tax on the amounts directed to be paid to the Complainant, is misplaced, inasmuch as the said deductions have been made strictly as per the provisions of the statutes.