This appeal challenges the order dated 29th September 2022, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which directed the respondent, Parsvnath Developers Limited, to refund the entire sum deposited by the complainants with 9% interest per annum. The complainants argued for a higher interest rate, citing the unfairness of the developer's lower penalty. The appeal resulted in modifying the interest rate to 12% per annum while upholding the refund order.

1. Introduction

• Appeal Against Commission Order: Challenges the order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 29th September 2022.
• Refund Ordered: Directed the developer to refund the amount with 9% interest.

2. Background

• Developer and Project: Parsvnath Developers launched the 'Parsvnath Paramount' project in New Delhi in 2008.
• Flat Booking and Agreement: Complainants booked a 3BHK flat, deposited sums, and entered into an agreement on 10th October 2008.
• Payment Plan: Opted for a 'Construction Linked Payment Plan,' paying 95% of the total sale price by 21st December 2013.

3. Issues Leading to Complaint

• Unilateral Transfer of Flat: Developer transferred the flat to a different tower in April 2011.
• VAT Payments: Complainants made VAT payments in 2014.
• Delay in Construction: No construction progress by June 2015.
• Failed Communication: Multiple attempts to contact the developer regarding project progress and compensation for delays were unsuccessful.

4. Legal Proceedings

• Consumer Case Filed: Complaint filed before the Commission in 2016 for a refund and compensation.
• Commission's Order: Partly allowed the complaint, ordering a refund with 9% interest and Rs. 1 lakh in costs.

5. Appeal Arguments

• Complainants' Argument: Interest rate of 9% was insufficient; argued for 24% based on the agreement's terms.
• Developer's Defense: Delay due to force majeure (technical issues and market recession).

6. Court's Analysis

• Force Majeure Rejected: Citing a precedent, the delay due to unsanctioned layout plans was not considered force majeure.
• Interest Rate Adjustment: Agreed with the complainants that the interest rate should at least match the agreement's terms, modifying it to 12% per annum.

7. Conclusion

• Appeal Partly Allowed: Refund order upheld; interest rate increased to 12%.
• Payment Timeline: Developer given three months to pay the adjusted amount.

8. Disposal of Pending Applications

• Pending Applications: Any pending applications were disposed of.