DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD versus D.S. DHANDA, ETC. ETC.
[2019] 7 S.C.R. 1061, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
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-Complainants
booked built up flats for purchase in one of the project of the
appellant – Buyer’s Agreements executed– Possession of the unit
was to be delivered within 24 months from the date of execution of
the agreement, failing which the appellant was liable to pay Rs. 10/
- per sq. ft. per month for the period of delay – Complaints filed
before State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC)
alleging delay in delivery of possession – Appellant inter alia pleaded
that construction could not be completed because of the stay on
construction granted by Supreme Court which opearted for about
8 months – SCDRC directed the appellant to hand over the physical
possession of the units allotted to the respondents, complete in all
respects within four months – National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission (NCDRC) partially modified the order – On appeal,
held: There is no surviving dispute in respect of extended period of
handing over possession available to the appellant i.e 36 months,
in view of the consent it obtained from the respondents to extend
the period of handing over possession further by one year– It is
categorical stand of the appellant that the flats have been completed
and occupation certificate has also been obtained – SCDRC and
NCDRC awarded
compensation under multiple heads on account
of singular default of not handing over possession–For delay in
handing over possession, the consumer is entitled to the
consequences agreed at the time of executing buyer’s agreement –
Though the 1986 Act empowers the authorities to award
compensation for any loss or injury including building damages
but the order of NCDRC or SCDRC awarding compensation is by
rule of thumb, without any foundation on judicially recognised
principles – Complainant entitled to interest as offered, for not
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 1061
1061
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
handing over possession, but present is not a case to award special
punitive damages as one of the causes for late delivery of possession
was beyond the control of the appellant – In view of the settlement
proposal submitted by the appellant in earlier two set of appeals
before Supreme Court in respect of the same project and to settle
any further controversy, directions issued to the appellant.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Respondents-Complainants
booked built up flats for purchase in one of the project of the
appellant – Amount deposited by the respondents – Delay in delivery
of possession of the flats – Award of interest – Held: Amount of
interest is the compensation to the beneficiary deprived of the use
of the investment made by the complainant – Therefore, such interest
will take into its ambit, the consequences of delay in not handing
over possession.
Words & Phrases – “Interest” – Meaning of – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The similar dispute in respect of same project
came up for decision before Supreme Court in DLF Homes
Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and Another Etc. v. Himanshu Arora and
Another, Etc..  The said set of appeals were decided on consent
granting interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Subsequently,
another set of appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 2285-2330 of 2019 titled
DLF Homes Panchkula (P.) Ltd. vs. Sushila Devi and Another came
up for decision before Supreme Court
including appeals filed by
the Appellants as well as by the Complainants. Such appeals were
also decided by consent. [Paras 6, 7] [1070-C-E]
1.2  The appellant offered for built up 1775 flats in its project
the DLF Valley in Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex,
Panchkula, Haryana. Some of the disputes settled in earlier two
rounds of appeals, whereas, many complaints are still pending
before different fora. There is no surviving dispute in respect of
extended period of handing over possession available to the
Appellant i.e. 36 months. By virtue of such extended period, the
possession was required to be handed over on or about
11.02.2014. It is categorical stand of the Appellant that the flats
have been completed and occupation certificate obtained from
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1063
the Office of Director, Town and Country Planning Department
of State of Haryana. The NCDRC rightly held that compensation
for loss, mental agony, litigation expenses and hardship,
uncertainty and helplessness can neither be meagre nor
exorbitant but has to be just and commensurate with the loss and
injury.  [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 pay
such amount as may be awarded as compensation to the consumer
for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the
negligence of the opposite party including to grant punitive
damages. But the forums under the Act cannot award interest
and/or compensation by applying rule of thumb.  The order to
grant interest at the maximum of rate of interest charged by
nationalised bank for advancing home loan is arbitrary and no
nexus with the default committed. The appellant has agreed to
deliver constructed flats. For delay in handing over possession,
the consumer is entitled to the consequences agreed at the time
of executing buyer’s agreement. There cannot be multiple heads
to grant of damages and interest when the parties have agreed
for payment of damages at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month.
Once the parties agreed for a particular consequence of delay in
handing over of possession then, there has to be exceptional and
strong reasons for the SCDRC/NCDRC to award compensation
at more than the agreed
rate. Though the 1986 Act empowers
the authorities to award compensation for any loss or injury
including building damages but the order of NCDRC or that of
SCDRC of awarding compensation is without any foundation being
laid down by the complainant on judicially recognised principles
and is by rule of thumb. Therefore, grant of compensation under
various heads granted by the NCDRC cannot be sustained. The
amount of the interest is the compensation to the beneficiary
deprived of the use of the investment made by the complainant.
Therefore, such interest will take into its ambit, the consequences
of delay in not handing over his possession. The SCDRC as well
as NCDRC awarded compensation under different heads on
account of singular default of not handing over possession. Such
award under various heads in respect of the same default is not
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD v. D.S. DHANDA, ETC.
ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1064
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
sustainable. Thus, the complainant is entitled to interest from
the Appellant for not handing over possession as projected as is
offered by it but it is not a case to award special punitive damages
as the one of the causes for late delivery of possession was beyond
the control of the Appellant. Therefore, in view of the settlement
proposal submitted by the Appellant in earlier two set of appeals
in respect of same project, and to settle any further controversy,
the Appellant is directed as follows: i) To send a copy of the
occupation certificate to the Complainants along with offer of
possession. The Appellant shall also direct the Jones Lang
LaSalle- the real estate maintenance agency, engaged by the
Appellant to undertake such maintenance works as is necessary
on account of damage due to non-occupation of the flats after
construction etc. ii) It shall be open to the Complainants to seek
the assistance of the maintenance agency to attend to the
maintenance work which may arise on account of non-occupation
or on account of natural vagaries. iii) Such maintenance work
shall be completed by the Appellant within two months of the
offer of possession but the payment of interest at the rate of 9
per cent per annum will be for a period of two months from the
date of offer of possession in all situations. iv) Since the
Complainants have been forced to invoke jurisdiction of the
consumer forums, they shall be entitled to
consolidated amount
of Rs. 50,000/- in each complaint on all accounts such as mental
agony and litigation expenses etc.  The complainant shall not be
entitled to any other amount over and above the amount
mentioned above. v) In case, the original allottee has transferred
the flat, the transferee shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9
per cent per annum from the date of expiry of three years from
the 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
(@SLP (C) Nos. 4363-4366 of 2019)
1.4 The grant of interest at the rate of 15% by SCDRC is
highly excessive. Since in other two set of appeals decided earlier,
Supreme Court had awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum
on the amount of refund, therefore, the order of SCDRC stand
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1065
modified so as to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of deposit till the date of refund. However, in case any
transfer of the flat, such interest will be payable from the date of
expiry of three years from the date of agreement or from the
date of transfer whichever is later. The Costs of Rs. 35,000/-
imposed by the SCDRC is maintained. The amount of refund be
paid 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] 3
Suppl. SCR 417 – relied on.
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. And Another Etc.
v. Himanshu Arora and Another, Etc. [2019] 7
SCALE 678 ; DLF Homes Panchkula (P.) Ltd. v. Sushila
Devi and Another [2019] 2 SCR 739 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 7 SCALE 678
referred to
Para 6
[2019] 2 SCR 739
referred to
Para 7
[1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 417
relied on
Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4910-
4941 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Orders  dated  24.10.2018 and 12.12.2018
of the  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
in 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. Sonali
Jain (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
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD v. D.S. DHANDA, ETC.
ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1066
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
Ramachandran, 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.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4910-4941  OF 2019
(@ SLP(C) Nos. 3623-3654 OF 2019)
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals are directed against orders dated
24.10.2018 & 12.12.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission1 disposing 16 First Appeals wherein the appeals
filed by the Appellant were decided by partially modifying the order
passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2 on
02.06.2016 wherein SCDRC directed the Appellant to hand over the
physical possession of the units allotted to the respondents (Complainants),
complete in all respects within a period of four months. However, for
facility of reference, facts are taken from the complaint filed by Shri
D.S. Dhanda. The SCDRC issued the following directions:
“Consumer Complaint bearing No. 94 of 2016, titled as D.S.
Dhanda Vs DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and anr. The
opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-
1.   To hand over physical possession of the unit, allotted in favour
of the complainant, complete in all respects, as per the terms
and conditions of the Agreement, to the complainant, within a
period of four months, from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order, on payment of
the amount, legally due
against him.
2.
To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the
unit, in question, within one month from the date of handling
over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment
of registration charges and stamp duty, by the complainant,
directly to the Registering Authorities concerned.
1 NCDRC
2 SCDRC
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1067
3.
To pay compensation, by way of interest @ 12% p.a., on the
deposited amount, to the complainant, from 10.02.2014
(promised date in view of the extension sought vide letter
dated 05.06.2013 i.e. 12 months after the stipulated date as
per Agreement i.e. from 10.02.2013) to 31.05.2016, within 2
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., till realization.
4.
To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the
deposited amount, due to the complainant w.e.f. 01.06.2016,
onwards (per month) by the 10th of the following month, failing
which, the same shall also carry penal interest @ 15% p.a.,
instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till the delivery
of possession.
5.
To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the
deposited amount, due to the complainant w.e.f. 01.06.2016,
onwards (per month) by the 10th of the following month, failing
which, the same shall also carry penal interest @ 15% p.a.,
instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till the delivery
of possession.
6.
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 the complaint
till realization.”
3. The Appellant preferred appeal against such order passed by
SCDRC before the
NCDRC. The NCDRC issued inter-alia the following
directions:
“(C) Compensation:
The compensation for loss and injury, for mental agony and physical
harassment, hardship and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness,
can be neither meagre nor exorbitant, but has to be just and
equitable, commensurate with the loss and injury (note: it could be
less than or more than what the complainant asked for or what
the State Commission determined, at the considered wisdom of
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD v. D.S. DHANDA, ETC.
ETC. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1068
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
the adjudicating authority/court in the facts and specificities of
the case).
And it is always desirable and preferable, to the extent feasible
and appropriate in the facts and specificities of a case, that some
objective logical criteria be identified and adopted to determine
the compensation. The compensation cannot be arbitrary or
whimsical, some reasonable and acceptable rational has to be
evident subjectivity has to be minimized.
We note that the State Commission has given compensation in
two parts, one, by way of interest on the deposited amount from
the ‘promised’/ assured date after taking in view the extension
sought vide letter dated 05.06.2013 i.e. 12 months after the 24
months’ conveyed and understood time period for completing
construction and handling over possession, and, two, a lumpsum
amount.
If compensation comprises of two parts, (i) by way of interest on
the deposited amount from the assured date (milestone date) of
completing construction and handling over possession to the actual
date of handling over possession, and, (ii) lumpsum amount, we
find nothing wrong in it.
We do not agree with the builder co.’s contentions that interest on
the deposited amount should not be provided since it is not a case
of refund but a case of delay in possession. The interest on the
deposited amount has to be viewed in the light of the purpose for
which it is intended. It is but a way of computing compensation
for
delay in possession that is commensurate with the amount
deposited by the complainant, and here it has been computed after
adopting a milestone date as per the builder co.’s own (unfair and
deceptive) letter of 05.06.2013. There can be and is no question
of not agreeing to an endorsing the award of interest from the
said milestone date.
Here we may however add that the rate of interest also cannot
be arbitrary or whimsical, some reasonable and acceptable
rationale has to be evident, subjectivity has to be minimized, a
logical correlation has to be established. Albeit detailed arithmetic
or algebra is not required. Logical (to the extent feasible) objective
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1069
parameters should be adopted. Rounding off simplification etc. to
make the computation doable could be adopted.
We feel it appropriate that, considering that the subject units in
question are dwelling units, in a residential housing project, the
rate of interest for house building loan for the corresponding period
in a scheduled nationalized bank (take, State Bank of India) would
be appropriate and logical, and , if ‘floating’/ varying/different
rates of interest were/ are prescribed, the higher rate of interest
should be taken for this instant computation.
We also feet it appropriate and logical that the lumpsum amount
awarded should be commensurate with the period for which there
has been delay in possession beyond the milestone date, and be
objectively and logically computed so.
In our considered view, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh per year from the
assured date of handing over possession to the actual date of
possession (pro-rata to the nearest whole month, with part month
to be taken as one month) would be objective, logical, just and
equitable in the facts and specificities of the case.
(D) Cost of litigation:
In respect of cost of litigation, too, just and equitable cost is
necessary (this, by its very nature needs no elaboration).
In our considered view, cost of litigation of Rs. 1 lakh is just and
appropriate in the facts and specificities of the case.”
4. The Complainant book a built up flat for purchase in pursuance
of a brochure on 30.03.2010 in a
project known as “DLF Valley” in
Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex, Panchkula, Haryana.  The
Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 11.02.2011. The possession of the
unit was contemplated to be delivered within 24 months from the date of
execution of the agreement i.e. up to 10.2.2013 failing which the Appellant
was 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 delivery
of possession of the escalation free flats and compensation on account
of delay in handing over possession including mental agony and litigation
expenses etc.
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD v. D.S. DHANDA, ETC.
ETC. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1070
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
5. In the return, the stand of the Appellant was, construction could
not be completed on account of stay granted on construction activities
by this Court which operated from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012.  Thereafter,
the Appellant sought consent from the Complainant to extend the period
of handing over possession by one year vide letter dated 05.06.2013. In
the alternative, option was given to get back the money deposited by the
Complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent per
annum.  It is also pointed out that on the day reply was filed, construction
of 258 independent floors was complete and another 1517 built-up units
were near completion.  Even occupation certificate has been received
for the units for which construction was complete.
6. The similar dispute in respect of same project came up for
decision before this Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and
Another Etc. v. Himanshu Arora and Another, Etc.3.  The said set
of appeals were decided on consent granting interest at the rate of 9 per
cent per annum.
7. Subsequently, another set of appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 2285-
2330 of 2019 titled DLF Homes Panchkula (P.) Ltd. vs. Sushila
Devi and Another came up for decision before this Court including
appeals filed by the Appellants as well as by the Complainants. Such
appeals were also decided by consent. The agreed terms are as under:
“(a) In all Refund cases, the award of interest @ 9% would be
payable in respect of deposits from the day they were made till
the date of refund.
(b) In cases where, upon transfer, a subsequent purchaser had
stepped into the shoes of the original allottee and had prayed for
Refund, the reckoning date for computing the interest be from the
date of his transfer in respect of all the amounts that were deposited
by the original allottee and if any subsequent deposits were made
by the transferee, from the dates of such deposits;
(c) In cases where Possession was sought, the period available to
the Developer under the agreement being three years (that is to
say original period of two years which was extendable, at the
option of the Developer, by further period of one year) ought not
to 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 19.11.2018
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1071
interest. Therefore, the period to be reckoned shall be after expiry
of three years from the date of agreement and in respect of such
period the compensation shall be at the same rate of 9%.
(d) In Possession cases, if there was any transfer and the
transferee had stepped into the shoes of the original allottee, the
compensation shall be paid from the date of expiry of three years
from the agreement as aforesaid or from the date of transfer,
whichever is later.”
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in
terms of the consent orders passed by this Court, the consumer
complaints be decided in terms of the Court orders passed in two sets of
appeals that is the cases of delay in handing over possession as well the
cases, where the complainants have sought refund of the amount
deposited. However, it is contended that certain allottees are not taking
possession so as to earn interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum
which is more than a contractual compensation of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per
month for the delayed possession as well as the loss of rent per month
pleaded 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 the
compensation awarded by this Court in the consent order referred to
above, therefore, some of the allottees are intentionally not taking
possession so as to continue to earn interest under the guise that it is the
Appellant who is not handing over the possession. It is contended that in
terms of the chart produced in Sushila Devi’s case (supra), 9 per cent
interest is payable till two months after offer of possession though such
clause does not find specifically mentioned in the order passed by this
Court.
10. It is argued that the Appellant will hand over possession only
after obtaining occupancy certificate from the Town and Country
Planning Department of the State of Haryana and after ensuring that
the maintenance works are taken care of by Jones Lang LaSalle - the
international real estate maintenance agency.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the allottees argued
that the possession is being offered of incomplete building and that allottees
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD v. D.S. DHANDA, ETC.
ETC. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
are entitled to compensation on account of the mental agony and litigation
expenses awarded by SCDRC and as modified by NCDRC.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that
the appellant offered for built up 1775 flats in its project the DLF Valley
in Sector 3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex, Panchkula, Haryana. Some
of the disputes settled in earlier two rounds of appeals, whereas, many
complaints are still pending before different fora.
13. There is no surviving dispute in respect of extended period of
handing over possession available to the Appellant i.e. 36 months.  By
virtue of such extended period, the possession was required to be handed
over on or about 11.02.2014.  The present set of appeals relates to the
Complainants claiming possession of the flats allotted to them in the
DLF Valley. It is categorical stand of the Appellant that the flats have
been completed and occupation certificate obtained from the Office of
Director, Town and Country Planning Department of State of Haryana.
14.  The learned NCDRC rightly held that compensation for loss,
mental agony, litigation expenses and hardship, uncertainty and
helplessness can neither be meagre nor exorbitant but has to be just and
commensurate with the loss and injury.  After holding so, the learned
NCDRC found that the Complainants are not entitled to stipulated amount
on account of delay in handing over possession but damages on the
amount
deposited apart from interest on the amount so deposited.
15. A perusal of the order passed by NCDRC shows that it
approved the directions of the SCDRC granting interest on the amount
deposited from the assured date and a lumpsum compensation on the
deposited amount from the assured date of completing construction and
handing over possession to the actual date of handing over possession.
The NCDRC thereafter awarded interest on the amount deposited by
the complainants at the maximum rate of interest on which the House
Building Loans are granted by nationalized Bank such as the State Bank
of India; awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per year from the assured
date of handing over possession to the actual date of compensation and
another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost of litigation.
16. The District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 19864
is empowered inter-alia   to order the opposite party to pay such amount
as may be awarded as compensation to the consumer for any loss or
4 1986 Act
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1073
injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite
party including to grant punitive damages. But the forums under the Act
cannot award interest and/or compensation by applying rule of thumb.
The order to grant interest at the maximum of rate of interest charged
by nationalised bank for advancing home loan is arbitrary and no nexus
with the default committed. The appellant has agreed to deliver
constructed flats. For delay in handing over possession, the consumer is
entitled to the consequences agreed at the time of executing buyer’s
agreement.  There cannot be multiple heads to grant of damages and
interest when the parties have agreed for payment of damages at the
rate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month. Once the parties agreed for a
particular consequence of delay in handing over of possession then, there
has to be exceptional and strong reasons for the SCDRC/NCDRC to
award compensation at more than the agreed rate.
17. Though the 1986 Act empowers the authorities to award
compensation for any loss or injury including building damages but the
order of NCDRC or that of SCDRC of awarding compensation is without
any foundation being laid down by the complainant on judicially recognised
principles and is by rule of thumb.  Therefore, we find that grant of
compensation under various heads granted by the NCDRC cannot be
sustained.
18. This Court in a judgment reported as Secretary, Irrigation
Department, Government of Orissa & Others vs.
G.C. Roy5
examined the question as to whether an arbitrator has the power to
award interest pendente lite. It was held that a person deprived of use of
money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated
for the deprivation which may be called interest, compensation or
damages. Thus, keeping in view the said principle laid down in the
aforesaid judgment, the amount of the interest is the compensation to
the beneficiary deprived of the use of the investment made by the
complainant. Therefore, such interest will take into its ambit, the
consequences of delay in not handing over his possession. In fact, we
find that the learned SCDRC as well as NCDRC has awarded
compensation under different heads on account of singular default of
not handing over possession. Such award under various heads in respect
of the same default is not sustainable.
5 (1992) 1 SCC 508
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD v. D.S. DHANDA, ETC.
ETC. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1074
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
19. Thus, we find that the complainant is entitled to interest from
the Appellant for not handing over possession as projected as is offered
by it but it is not a case to award special punitive damages as the one of
the causes for late delivery of possession was beyond the control of the
Appellant. Therefore, in view of the settlement proposal submitted by
the Appellant in earlier two set of appeals in respect of same project,
and to settle any further controversy, the Appellant is directed as follows:
i) To send a copy of the occupation certificate to the Complainants
along with offer of possession. The Appellant shall also direct the
Jones Lang LaSalle - the real estate maintenance agency, engaged
by the Appellant to undertake such maintenance works as is
necessary on account of damage due to non-occupation of the
flats after construction etc.
ii) It shall be open to the Complainants to seek the assistance of
the maintenance agency to attend to the maintenance work which
may arise on account of non-occupation or on account of natural
vagaries.
iii) Such maintenance work shall be completed by the Appellant
within two months of the offer of possession but the payment of
interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum will be for a period of
two months from the date of offer of possession in all situations.
v) Since the Complainants have been forced to invoke jurisdiction
of the consumer forums, they shall be entitled to
consolidated
amount of Rs. 50,000/- in each complaint on all accounts such as
mental agony and litigation expenses etc.  The complainant shall
not be entitled to any other amount over and above the amount
mentioned above.
vi) In case, the original allottee has transferred the flat, the
transferee shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per
annum from the date of expiry of three years from the agreement
or from the date of transfer, whichever is later.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4942-4945   OF 2019
(@SLP (C) Nos. 4363-4366 of 2019)
20. Leave granted.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1075
21. The Complainant in these cases have sought refund of the
amount deposited by them with the Appellant. The learned SCDRC
passed an order on 04.08.2017 directing the Appellant as under:-
“i. To refund the amounts of Rs. 49,25,461/- alongwith simple
interest @ 15% per annum, to the complainant, from the respective
dates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite
Parties shall pay the aforesaid amounts alongwith simple interest
@ 18% per annum, instead of 15% per annum, from the date of
default till actual payments;
ii. To pay an amount of Rs. 35,000/- as litigation costs, to the
complainant, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Parties
shall 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 was
dismissed for non-compliance of an order in an application of condonation
of delay. Still aggrieved, the Appellants are before this Court.
23. We find that the grant of interest at the rate of 15% by SCDRC
is highly excessive. Since in other two set of appeals decided earlier, this
Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount
of refund, therefore, the order of SCDRC stand modified so as to pay
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
deposit till the date
of refund.
24. However, in case any transfer of the flat, such interest will be
payable from the date of expiry of three years from the date of agreement
or from the date of transfer whichever is later.
25. The Costs of Rs. 35,000/- imposed by the SCDRC is
maintained.
26. The amount of refund be paid to the Complainants within two
months along with the costs.
Divya Pandey
Appeals disposed of.
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD v. D.S. DHANDA, ETC.
ETC. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]