the escalation in the cost of construction will not be as much as in a case where the delay is of five years or more. The Honble Supreme Court however, rejected the contention that interest should be awarded only at the current rate of interest in terms of the provision of the Interest Act, 1978. Thus, the Honble Apex Court clearly upheld payment of interest even at the rate of 18% per annum in a case where the facts are gross. As noted earlier, the interest ought to be at a higher rate in a case where the delay is for five years or more.
12. In the case before us, the opposite party is a private builder and not a Development Authority. Had they delayed the payment, the opposite party would have charged interest from the complainants @ 24% per annum. The Development Authorities do not charge interest from its allottees at such a high rate. Moreover, the delay in the aforesaid cases is more than five years and this is not the case of the opposite party that the construction is already complete or is even nearing completion. The opposite party has already taken almost entire sale consideration from the complainants. However, despite making almost entire payment, the complainants have not been able to get the shelters they had sought to acquire and considering the steep increase in the value of land and the cost of construction in last 7-8 years, it is not possible for them to acquire another similar accommodation even after adding the amount of interest @ 18% per annum to the amount they had deposited with the opposite party. Therefore, the facts of these cases are really gross and justify grant of interest @ 18% per annum, inclusive of appreciation in the value of land and increase in the cost of construction in last about 7-8 years.
13. The learned counsel for the opposite party has also referred to decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 12SCC 1, State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. S.L. Arora & Co. (2010) 3 SCC 690 and Sree Kamatchi Ammam Constructions Vs. The Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Palghat & However, in none of these cases, the Court was concerned with grant ofOrs. (2010) 8 SCC 767. interest by a Consumer Forum in a case where refund to the buyer is ordered on account of the abnormal delay on the part of the seller in completing the construction. Therefore, none of these judgments would really apply to the complaints before this Commission.
14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with a direction to the opposite party to refund the amount which the complainants had deposited with it, along with interest on the said amount @ 18% per annum from the date the deposit was made till the date the refund is made. This comprises 8% per annum on account of appreciation in the land value and increase in the cost of construction and 10% on account of interest. However, considering that compensation is included in grant of interest @ 18% per annum, we do not grant any separate compensation to the complainants over and above interest @ 18% per annum.
15. It has come in the pleadings of the parties that in some cases, the opposite party reimbursed a part of the EMIs paid by the complainants. In those cases, the opposite party shall be entitled to deduct from their gross liability computed in terms of this order, the amount reimbursed by it along with interest on that amount @ 18% per annum from the date it was reimbursed till the date of payment in terms of this order is made. Considering that, we are granting interest to the complainants @ 18% per annum, we do not propose to award any cost of litigation to them. The payment in terms of this order shall be made by the opposite party within four months from today, failing which the complainants shall be entitled to seek execution of this order in accordance with law. The complaints stand disposed of accordingly. ......................J
V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER