This appeal challenges the final order dated 23rd January 2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which allowed a complaint by homebuyers regarding delayed possession of a flat. The NCDRC directed the developer to issue a fresh statement of account, credit delayed compensation, and execute the conveyance deed. However, the NCDRC also allowed the developer to charge 9% interest on the balance amount, which the appellants opposed. The Supreme Court set aside the part of the NCDRC's order allowing interest and directed the developer to convey the outstanding amount within two months, with possession to be given within 30 days of final payment.

1. Background of the Dispute:
   The appellants (homebuyers) purchased a flat from the respondent-developer and made 90% of the total sale consideration (Rs. 2,21,56,942.42) by June 23, 2014. However, the developer failed to hand over possession by the scheduled date of 16th March 2014, leading to the consumer complaint.

2. NCDRC's Order (23rd January 2023):
   The NCDRC allowed the homebuyers' complaint, directing the developer to issue a fresh statement of account, crediting delayed compensation of Rs. 24,33,120 as of 13th November 2017. The developer was further directed to charge interest at 9% per annum on the balance amount (except stamp duty and registration charges) from 14th November 2017 till the date of payment.

3. Appeal by Homebuyers:
   The appellants challenged the NCDRC's order on the grounds that the developer should not be allowed to charge 9% interest on the remaining balance after having delayed possession.

4. Supreme Court’s Judgment:
   The Court found that the NCDRC erred in allowing the developer to charge 9% interest on the balance amount. This part of the order was quashed, and the developer was directed to convey the outstanding amount within two months and hand over possession within 30 days of the final payment.

5. Final Decision:
   The appeal was allowed, and the Supreme Court clarified the developer’s obligations regarding the outstanding payment and the handover of possession.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Consumer Protection Act, 2019
  (Primarily, the appeal was adjudicated under the framework of consumer disputes, where delays in property possession and compensation matters fall under the jurisdiction of consumer protection law.)

• Interest Act, 1978
  (The issue of the 9% interest rate pertains to interest laws, where disputes arise regarding financial obligations due to delay in payment or possession.)

Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court ruled that the National Commission erred in allowing the respondent-developer to charge 9% interest on the balance amount, given that the delay in possession was caused by the developer. The developer was primarily responsible for not fulfilling the agreement to deliver the flat on time, and thus, the imposition of interest was unjustified in this context.