(ORAL) O R D E R Challenge in these three Revision Petitions, by a Real Estate developer, namely, Shivalik Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. and its two main functionaries, is to the common order dated 7.8.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short the State Commission) in FA/982-984/2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the common orders dated

12.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali (for short the District Forum) in CC/199-201/2014 and thus dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Appellants.

2. In the first instance, accepting the Complaints filed by the Respondents herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in not delivering the possession of the respective plots allotted to them in the Scheme christened as Shivalik City, Sector 27, Greater Mohali, allotted to them as far back as in July 2011 and even the Sale Deed in respect thereof, having been executed in February 2012, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to deliver the vacant physical possession of the subject plots to the Complainants, along with complete amenities and infrastructure, as agreed to while making the allotments, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of its order; pay a sum of 40,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the Complainants; interest @ 12% p.a. on the amounts deposited by them from the respective dates of deposit till the date of actual handing over of the possession of the subject plots and litigation cost, quantified at 10,000/- in each of the cases.

3. On 15.3.2018, when the cases came up for motion hearing, we had directed the Petitioners to place on record, on an affidavit, the following information : (i) The date of acquisition of the land for development as a residential colony; (ii) The date when the Applications seeking all statutory approvals for development of the colony were filed; (iii) The date on which the said approvals were granted and received; (iv) The date on which the plots in question were allotted in favour of the Complainants; and, (v) The date on which Conveyance Deeds in respect of the said plots were executed in favour of the Complainants.

4. In deference to the said directions, an affidavit has been filed by the Managing Director of the Petitioner Company, which reveals some startling facts. From the information furnished in the affidavit, it transpires that though the plots in question were allotted to the Complainants on 1.7.2011 and as noted above, even the Sale Deeds in respect thereof had been executed on 8.2.2012, the Petitioners had applied for sanction of the approval/regularization of the residential colony, in which the plots were allotted, only on 23.11.2013 and the regularization certificate for the residential colony was issued by the Competent Authority only on 9.6.2014. On a pointed query, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is unable to apprise the Bench whether the physical possession of the plots in question, as directed by the Fora below, has been delivered to the Complainants or not.

5. In light of the aforestated information, furnished on affidavit by the Managing Director of the Petitioner Company, we do not find any ground whatsoever, to interfere with the concurrent finding returned by both the Forums below to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in not handing over actual physical possession of the plots in question to the Complainants despite having received full sale consideration from them as far back as in the year 2011.

6. At this stage, as a last resort, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that interest awarded by the Fora below @ 12% p.a. is on the higher side. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that coordinate Benches of this Commission are awarding interest ranging between 7.5% to 10%. He thus, prays that the rate of interest deserves to be reduced.

7. Having regard to the facts at hand, we are unable to agree with the learned Counsel. It is trite law that the interest to be awarded depends on the facts of each case and there is no codified formulae for universal application in every case.

8. Having regard to the facts of the present case, briefly noted above, wherein the Petitioners are not only deficient in not delivering the physical possession of the plots for over seven years, in our view, they have also indulged in Unfair Trade Practice in making allotments of the plots and executing the Sale Deeds in favour of the gullible Complainants, when admittedly they did not even have the sanction to carve out a residential colony. Accordingly, we reject the prayer for reduction in the rate of interest.

9. Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed with a in limine direction to the Petitioners to deposit in the Consumer Legal Aid Account a sum of 10,000/- in each of the cases within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the requisite deposits are not made, the office shall take appropriate steps for the recovery of the said amounts.

10. Before parting with the case, we are constrained to observe that even in the absence of any interim stay of the order impugned in these Revision Petitions, the Executing Court is not proceeding in the Execution Applications because of the pendency of these Revision Petitions. We would expect the Fora below to deal with the Applications expeditiously, bearing in mind the object of the. We say no more. ......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER