When Interest is awarded by way of damages awarding additional compensation is unjustified: NCDRC

Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sandeep Kumar Goel (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

Conclusion: The National Commission modified the Order of State Commission by reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 9% in the matter of delayed possession of Apartment and further it was held that since the compensation in the form of interest @9% p.a. has already been awarded, the Complainant shall not be entitled for any other compensation.

Facts: In present case, the present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainants was allowed and the Opposite Party “the builder” was directed to waive off the holding charges as well as charges of interest 24% p.a. on the delayed payment and to handover the physical possession of the Apartment, complete in all respects, to the Complainants and to pay interest @12% p.a. on the total amount paid by the Complainants from the tentative date of delivery of possession, i.e., 19.07.2013 till realization. The Appellant Builder was also directed to refund service tax amount which was deposited by the Complainants alongwith interest @6% from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The Appellant Builder was further directed to pay compensation of 22,00,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the Complainants alongwith cost of 250,000/- within 45 days failing which the Complainants would be entitled to get the interest @15% per annum for the defaulting period.

Brief facts of the case were that Apartment Buyer Agreement was executed between the Parties on 19.07.2010. The Complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 53,82,806/- with the Appellant Builder as per schedule but deposited the instalment of 25,12,925/- on 29.11.2016 vide cheque No. 536571. As per clause 25 of the Apartment Buyers Agreement, the Appellant Builder was bound to deliver the possession of the Flat within 36 months from the date of the execution of the Agreement. It was alleged by the Complainants that despite having received substantial amount from them the Appellant Builder offered the possession of the Flat on 25.01.2016, i.e., delay of about 21/2 years from 19.07.2013, i.e., the expected/proposed date of delivery of the possession. After receiving the letter of offer of possession dated 25.01.2016, the Complainants visited the site and found that the Project was still incomplete.

Vide letter dated 04.10.2016, the Appellant Builder demanded interest @24% on the outstanding dues whereas as per previous letter dated 25.01.2016, the previous outstanding amount was reflected as 22,53,207/- and the compensation amount on delayed possession as adjusted by the Appellant Builder was 24,95,800/-. Thus, reflecting net amount of 22,42,593/- which was payable to the Complainants by the Appellant Builder yet vide letter dated 04.10.2016 Appellant Builder sought interest @24% p.a. on the outstanding dues, which is illegal. The Complainants made representation to the Appellant Builder on 13.12.2016 but in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant Builder, the Complainants filed a consumer Complaint before the State Commission.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.