CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARDversusM/S. PARASVANATH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

                        [2019] 15 S.C.R. 157                             157


               CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD                                  A
                                  v.
   M/S. PARASVANATH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 10748 of 2016)
                       DECEMBER 17, 2019                                 B
           [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
                R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
       Consumer Protection:
       Failure to deliver flat to the consumer – By the Developer –
                                                                         C
Due to the dispute between the Housing Board and the Developer
which was referred for Arbitration – In the Award Arbitrator fixed
the liability on the Developer and the Housing Board in respect of
refund to the residential unit buyers in the ratio of 70:30 – National
Consumer Commission directed refund of principal sum to the
complainant @ 10% interest – It also directed payment of Rs. 1           D
lakh towards mental harassment and further Rs. 1 lakh towards
litigation charges – In view of the award, ascertained the liability
of Developer and Housing Board in the ratio of 70:30 – Appeal to
Supreme Court by Housing Board questioning the liability fixed
upon it in respect of litigation cost and for mental harassment and
                                                                         E
also enhancement of interest rate to 10% – Held: In view of Clause
9(c) of the Tripartite Agreement, liability to pay the cost towards
litigation and mental harassment cannot be fixed on Developer alone
as the cost does not qualify as compensation u/clause 9(c) – The
apportionment of the liability is well founded – The increase in the
interest rate was in exercise of discretionary power of the National     F
Commission and is not liable to be interfered with.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 A close reading of Clause 9(c) of the Tripartite
Agreement indicates two salient features– first, the liability to
pay compensation under this Clause can only be affixed on the            G
Developer if it fails to fulfill the condition under Clause 9(a) and
perform its obligations under the Development Agreement, i.e.
if it does not hand over the possession of the flat to the buyer
within a period of 36 months from the date of signing of the
                                                                         H
                                 157
158           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     Development Agreement. The second feature of Clause 9(c) is
      that it envisages a fixed compensation of Rs. 107.60 per sq metre
      per month to be paid to the flat buyer. [Para 10][165-F]
             1.2 Clause 9(c) is not attracted in the present case at all.
      First, there has been no fulfilment of the condition under Clause
B     9(a) for Clause 9(c) to come into operation. This is because the
      Developer never even began construction at the project site due
      to the dispute with the Housing Board about the encumbrances
      on the allotted land. Thus, the question of finishing such
      construction within the period mentioned under Clause 9(a) does
C     not even arise. Consequently, Clause 9(c), which is concerned
      with the non-fulfilment of this obligation, is also not attracted.
      [Para 10.1][165-G-H; 166-A]
            1.3 Thus, given that the breach of the Development
      Agreement is attributable to both, Housing Board and the
D     Developer, the failure to hand over possession of the flat to the
      buyer cannot be said to be on account of the non-performance of
      the obligation of the Developer alone. Consequently, Clause 9(c)
      is not applicable to the present case. [Para 10.1][166-E]
            1.4 The amount awarded by the National Commission in
E     the impugned order, i.e. Rs. 1 lakh each towards mental
      harassment and litigation costs, cannot be read as compensation
      contemplated under Clause 9(c) of the Tripartite Agreement.
      Evidently, the litigation costs cannot be construed as
      compensation. Even with respect to the award of Rs. 1 lakh for
      mental harassment, such amount is in the nature of a general,
F     lump sum compensation, which falls short of qualifying as
      compensation under Clause 9(c). This is especially because there
      is no mention of the stipulated fixed rate of Rs.107.60 per sq
      metre of the super area of the unit, per month in the impugned
      order. Thus, the liability of paying a total of Rs. 2 lakhs under
G     those heads cannot be foisted on the Developer alone in terms
      of Clause 9(c). [Para 10.2][166-F-H]
           1.5 The Appellant’s reliance on the revocation deed is
      misplaced, as para 4 of this deed clearly states that “the parties
      have accepted the award” and chosen to act in accordance with
H
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD v. M/S. PARASVANATH DEVELOPERS                159
                    PVT. LTD. & ANR.


the same. Thus, it cannot be argued that this revocation deed          A
displaces the arbitration award dated 09.01.2015 and the direction
therein for the Developer and the Housing Board to pay
compensation (if and when determined) in the ratio of 70:30. In
any case, this revocation deed may, at best, arguably settle the
rights and obligations or disputes between the parties in respect      B
of the Development Agreement. Such settlement of rights and
obligations cannot be extended in a manner that enables the
Developer and the Housing Board to wriggle out of their liability
under the Tripartite Agreement with the Complainant. Thus, the
revocation deed cannot be invoked by the Appellant to escape
its liability flowing from the Tripartite Agreement and the            C
arbitration award. [Para 11][167-B-D]
      1.6 Such division is well-founded as the sale proceeds from
the flat buyers were apportioned in the same ratio of 70:30
between the Developer and the Housing Board. This is supported
by the Escrow Agreement dated 01.06.2007 executed by the               D
Housing Board and the Developer in pursuance of the
Development Agreement. Clause 4(b) of this Escrow Agreement
provides that 30% of the sale proceeds in respect of the
residential units would first be transferred to the Housing Board
and the remaining amount shall then be transferred to the              E
Developer. In view of this, the amount directed to be paid by the
National Commission in the impugned order must be paid by the
Developer and the Housing Board in the ratio of 70:30. [Para
13][167-G-H; 168-A]
       2.1 Clause 9(d) of the Tripartite Agreement requires the        F
Developer and the Housing Board to refund the amounts
received from the buyer with interest, if the Developer is unable
to deliver the unit to the buyer due to non-approvals from the
competent authorities. Here, under Clause 9(d), the parties are
liable to refund the principal sum in the ratio of 70:30 as they had
received the sale proceeds in the same ratio. [Para 14][168-B-         G
C]
      2.2 The increase in the interest rate to 10% was made by
the National Commission in exercise of its discretionary power.
It is possible that the National Commission chose to enhance
the interest rate in view of the fact that it had already imposed      H
160            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     lesser compensation than the significantly higher compensation
      stipulated under Clause 9(c). National Commission was right in
      directing the Developer and the Housing Board to pay the
      principal sum of Rs. 1,03,31,250/- at 10% p.a. to the Complainant.
      Further, it is found that the direction to pay Rs. 2 lakhs in to
      towards mental harassment and litigation costs in the ratio of
B
      70:30 between the Developer and the Housing Board is also
      correct. [Para 14, 15][168-C-E]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10748
      of 2016.
C           From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2016 of the National
      Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Complaint
      No. 19 of 2011.
            Sachin Datta, Sudhir Makkar, Sr. Advs., Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar,
      Ms. Prerana Chaturvedi, Jay Kishor Singh, Prabhakar Tiwari, Jay Kishor
D     Singh, Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, Advs. for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
            1. Delay condoned in filing appeal.
E            2. This appeal arises out of the final order dated 11.05.2016 passed
      by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi
      (hereinafter ‘National Commission’) in Consumer Complaint (C.C.) No.
      19 of 2011, vide which the Respondent No.1 and Appellant herein were
      directed to pay Respondent No. 2 herein a principal sum of
      Rs. 1,03,31,250/- with interest @ 10% p.a., Rs.1,00,000 for mental
F
      harassment and agony, and Rs.1,00,000 towards litigation costs in the
      ratio of 70:30.
            3. The factual background to this appeal is as follows:
            3.1 The Appellant herein, Chandigarh Housing Board (hereinafter
G     ‘CHB’) invited bids to implement an integrated project with residential,
      commercial, and other related infrastructure facilities at the Rajiv Gandhi
      Chandigarh Technological Park in Chandigarh. The bid sent by
      Respondent No. 1 herein, M/s. Parasvanath Developers Ltd.
      (hereinafter ‘Developer’) was accepted by CHB. Consequently, CHB
      and the Developer entered into a Development Agreement dated
H
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD v. M/S. PARASVANATH DEVELOPERS                      161
     PVT. LTD. & ANR. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]


06.10.2006 for the grant of development rights in respect of land            A
measuring 123 acres. The said land was allotted to the Developer by
CHB for constructing residential units, who then advertised its project
for the sale of flats and pent houses as “Parsvanath Pride Asia”.
       3.2 Respondent No. 2 herein (hereinafter ‘the Complainant’)
applied for the allotment of a five-bedroom apartment in this project and    B
paid a sum of Rs.1,03,31,250/- towards the total tentative price of
Rs. 3,93,25,000/-. Later, a tripartite flat buyer agreement (hereinafter
‘Tripartite Agreement’) was executed between the Developer, CHB,
and the Complainant on 23.04.2008. Clause 9(a) of this agreement stated
that the construction of the flat was likely to be completed within a
period of 36 months from the signing of the Development Agreement            C
between CHB and the Developer, i.e., 06.10.2006.
       3.3 Having received no intimation from the Developer about the
status of the project, between September-October 2009, the Complainant
inquired and found that construction had not been commenced at the
project site. Consequently, he sought a refund of the deposit amount of      D
Rs.1,03,31,250 with interest at 20% p.a. When the refund was not made,
the Complainant approached the National Commission on 24.02.2011. It
is crucial to note here that similar complaints were filed by other flat
buyers before the State Commission and the National Commission.
       3.4 Before the National Commission, it was the case of the            E
Developer that the construction could not be carried out in time, as CHB
had failed to hand over the possession of unencumbered land to it for
raising the construction. On the contrary, CHB argued that disputes only
existed for land earmarked for commercial activities, and there was no
dispute with respect to the 123 acres of land handed over to the             F
Developer for the construction of residential units. Therefore, it was
contended by CHB that the Developer was liable to satisfy the claim of
the flat buyer and the complaint was bad as against CHB for misjoinder
of party. Notably, the dispute between the Developer and the CHB with
respect to the Development Agreement was referred to arbitration.
                                                                             G
      3.5 Pending the arbitration proceedings, the National Commission
passed an order in a similar matter on 05.03.2013, noting that the flat
buyers could not be deprived of their legitimate claims due to an inter se
dispute between CHB and the Developer. Observing that the Developer
had failed to construct the residential units and hand over possession in
                                                                             H
162             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     time, the National Commission passed an interim order directing the
      Developer to pay compensation to the flat buyer in terms of Clause 9(c)
      of the Tripartite Agreement at Rs. 107.60 per sq metre, subject to the
      final outcome of the arbitration proceedings. Further, in terms of Clause
      9(d) of the Tripartite Agreement, the Developer and CHB were directed
      to pay interest at the uniform rate of 9% p.a. on the amount to be refunded
B
      to the flat buyers in the ratio of 70:30.
             3.6 Finally, on 09.01.2015, the learned arbitrator passed an award
      in the arbitration proceedings between CHB and the Developer. The
      award specifically noted that since the flat buyers were not party to the
      arbitration, the award would only bind CHB and the Developer, and the
C     entitlement of the residential flat buyers would have to be decided based
      on the facts of each case in independent proceedings. However, with
      respect to the liability to refund the advances collected from the residential
      unit buyers, the learned arbitrator found that the non-completion of the
      project was a result of breaches committed by both, the Developer and
D     CHB. Therefore, he directed that any amount payable on account of
      refund of price, interest, or compensation (if and when finally determined
      by the National Commission or the Supreme Court) would be borne by
      the Developer and CHB in the ratio of 70:30.
             3.7 Meanwhile, an order was passed by a 3-judge Bench of this
E     Court on 21.04.2015 in an SLP filed against the order of the National
      Commission dated 05.03.2013 and other connected matters. Dismissing
      the SLP, the Court took note of the arbitration award dated 09.01.2015
      and observed that Clause 9(c) of the Tripartite Agreement, which
      stipulates the payment of compensation, would only be applicable as
      against the Developer if it is not in a position to offer a flat to the buyer
F     after the expiry of 36 months as stated in Clause 9(a) of the Tripartite
      Agreement.
             3.8 Finally, vide the impugned order dated 11.05.2016, the National
      Commission disposed of the consumer complaint filed by Respondent
      No. 2 herein. Taking into account the observations in the final arbitral
G     award attributing responsibility of breach of the Development Agreement
      to the Developer and CHB, as well as the fact that the Developer had
      received the deposit sum from the Complainant long ago and had benefited
      from it, the National Commission directed CHB and the Developer to
      pay the principal sum of Rs. 1,03,31,250/- to the Complainant at 10%
H     p.a. from the date of deposit till realization. Further, Rs. 1 lakh was
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD v. M/S. PARASVANATH DEVELOPERS                         163
     PVT. LTD. & ANR. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]


awarded for mental harassment and another Rs. 1 lakh was awarded                A
towards litigation charges. Both of these were directed to be borne by
the Developer and CHB in the ratio of 70:30. The instant appeal has
been preferred by CHB against this order, contesting the liability fixed
upon it with respect to the payment for litigation costs and mental
harassment, as well as the enhancement in interest rate.
                                                                                B
      4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
       5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant (CHB) submitted that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside as it wrongly saddles CHB with
the liability to pay the Complainant 30% of the amount due towards
mental harassment and litigation costs. It is argued that such amount is        C
in the nature of compensation and must therefore be borne by the
Developer as Clause 9(c) of the Tripartite Agreement provides that the
Developer shall be liable to pay compensation to the flat buyer at Rs.
107.60 per sq metres in case of non-delivery of possession of the
residential units in time. Further, alluding to a revocation deed dated
04.02.2015 entered into by CHB and the Developer after the arbitral             D
award, learned Counsel argued that all third party liabilities have now
been taken over by the Developer and can thus not be affixed on CHB.
As far as the liability to return the principal amount is concerned, it was
submitted that 30% of the principal sum has already been paid by CHB
as per Clause 9(d) of the Tripartite Agreement. However, as regards             E
the interest rate payable on the same, it was contended that the National
Commission erred in enhancing the rate from 9% p.a. to 10% p.a. without
giving any reasons for the same.
       6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1
emphasized that the finding of the arbitrator that both the Developer           F
and CHB are guilty of breach, and are therefore liable to make refund
of price, interest, or compensation in the ratio of 70:30, should be given
utmost importance. This is because the order of the National Commission
dated 05.03.2013 passed in a similar matter, made the direction as to the
payment of compensation under Clause 9(c) subject to the outcome of
the arbitration proceedings. Similarly, the interim order of this Court dated   G
21.04.2015 affirms the findings in the arbitration award as to the
interpretation of Clause 9(c) of the Tripartite Agreement. Thus, it was
argued that in all these orders, the inter se apportionment of liability has
been relegated in terms of the arbitration award, and therefore, the ratio
of 70:30 stipulated therein should be given effect. Further, learned Senior     H
164            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     Counsel argued that Clause 9(c) was not made applicable to the instant
      case, as this clause deals with compensation payable upon non-
      performance of obligations, which is different from the nature of
      compensation awarded in the impugned order.
              7. In addition to this, learned Senior Counsel representing the
B     Complainant (Respondent No. 2) argued that the amount awarded to
      the Complainant vide the impugned order is only in the nature of a general,
      lump sum amount and is not the compensation contemplated under Clause
      9(c) of the Tripartite Agreement. In any case, he submitted that an inter
      se dispute between CHB and the Developer as to the apportionment of
      liability should not come in the way of the Complainant’s right to receive
C     compensation.
             8. Upon perusing the record and hearing the arguments advanced
      by the parties, two issues arise for our consideration in this appeal:
            (a) whether the National Commission was right in directing the
D               payment of amount towards mental harassment and litigation
                costs in the ratio of 70:30, or whether such amount falls within
                the purview of compensation under Clause 9(c) of the Tripartite
                Agreement so as to be paid solely by the Developer.
            (b) whether the interest rate awarded on the principal sum was
E               rightly increased from 9% p.a. to 10% p.a.
            9. As regards the first issue, it would be useful to refer to the
      relevant portions of the Tripartite Agreement executed between the
      Complainant, CHB, and the Developer on 23.04.2008:
            “9. (a) Construction of the residential units is likely to be completed
F           within a period of thirty six (36 months) of the signing of the
            Development Agreement on 06.10.2006 between the Developer
            and CHB and/or as may be extended terms of the Development
            Agreement shall be subject to force majeure and circumstances
            beyond the control of the developer, and any restrain restrictions
            from any Courts/Authorities. The delay in grant of development
G
            clearances beyond 12 months of the signing of the Development
            Agreement shall not be counted towards the said portion of 36
            months.
            …(c) In case possession of the built up area is not offered to the
            buyer within a period of 36 months or extended period as stipulated
H
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD v. M/S. PARASVANATH DEVELOPERS                         165
     PVT. LTD. & ANR. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]


      in sub-clause (a) above, the buyer shall be entitled to receive from      A
      the developer compensation @ Rs.107.60 per Sq. Mtrs. (Rs. 10/
      - per Sq. Ft.) of the super area of the unit per month and to no
      other compensation of any kind. In case the buyer fails to clear
      his account and take possession of the unit within 30 days of
      offer, the buyer shall be liable to pay to the developer holding
                                                                                B
      charges @ Rs. 107.60 per Sq Mtrs. (Rs. 10/- per Sq. Ft.) of the
      super area of the unit per month in addition to the liability to pay
      interest to the sellers and other consequences of default in payment.
      (d) If as a result of any Rules or directions of the Government or
      if any competent authority delays, withholds, denies the grant of
      necessary approvals for the Project, or if due to any force majeure       C
      conditions, the developer is unable to deliver the unit to the buyer,
      the developer and CHB shall be liable to refund to the buyer the
      amounts received from the buyer with interest at the SBI term
      deposit rate as applicable on the date of refund.”
      From the above, it is evident that the Developer and CHB agreed           D
to complete the construction of the residential units within a period of 36
months from the date of signing of the Development Agreement on
06.10.2006. In the event that such construction was not done, Clause
9(c) would come into operation and the Developer would become liable
to compensate the buyer at Rs. 107.60 per sq metre of the super area of         E
the unit, per month.
        10. A close reading of Clause 9(c) of the Tripartite Agreement
indicates two salient features– first, the liability to pay compensation
under this Clause can only be affixed on the Developer if it fails to fulfill
the condition under Clause 9(a) and perform its obligations under the           F
Development Agreement, i.e. if it does not hand over the possession of
the flat to the buyer within a period of 36 months from the date of signing
of the Development Agreement. The second feature of Clause 9(c) is
that it envisages a fixed compensation of Rs. 107.60 per sq metre per
month to be paid to the flat buyer.
                                                                                G
       10.1 When the facts of the instant case are examined in light of
these observations, it becomes clear that Clause 9(c) is not attracted in
the present case at all. First, there has been no fulfilment of the condition
under Clause 9(a) for Clause 9(c) to come into operation. This is because
the Developer never even began construction at the project site due to
the dispute with CHB about the encumbrances on the allotted land. Thus,         H
166             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     the question of finishing such construction within the period mentioned
      under Clause 9(a) does not even arise. Consequently, Clause 9(c), which
      is concerned with the non-fulfilment of this obligation, is also not attracted.
      It is notable that the arbitrator has also arrived at a finding to this effect
      in his award dated 09.01.2015 as follows:
B            “296. Consequently, if any amount is payable on account of refund
             of price, interest, or compensation (if and when finally determined),
             respondent is liable to bear and pay 30% thereof, the balance of
             70% being payable by the claimant (PDL). Article 14.2.5 no doubt
             makes the developer solely and exclusively responsible to
             residential unit buyers, but that is only in regard to non-performance
C            of its obligations. The said provision does not make claimant
             responsible for the breaches committed by the respondent, nor
             absolve the respondent from liability for the consequences of its
             defaults/breaches, which contributed to the non-performance of
             the obligations by the developer towards the residential unit
             buyers.”
D
                                                              (emphasis supplied)
             Thus, given that the breach of the Development Agreement is
      attributable to both, CHB and the Developer, the failure to hand over
      possession of the flat to the buyer cannot be said to be on account of the
E     non-performance of the obligation of the Developer alone. Consequently,
      Clause 9(c) is not applicable to the present case. This reading of Clause
      9(c) has also been affirmed by this Court in its order dated 21.04.2015,
      and for the reasons mentioned supra, we do not deem it fit to interfere
      with the same.
             10.2 Secondly, we find that the amount awarded by the National
F
      Commission in the impugned order, i.e. Rs. 1 lakh each towards mental
      harassment and litigation costs, cannot be read as compensation
      contemplated under Clause 9(c) of the Tripartite Agreement. Evidently,
      the litigation costs cannot be construed as compensation. Even with
      respect to the award of Rs. 1 lakh for mental harassment, we find that
G     such amount is in the nature of a general, lump sum compensation, which
      falls short of qualifying as compensation under Clause 9(c). This is
      especially because there is no mention of the stipulated fixed rate of
      Rs.107.60 per sq metre of the super area of the unit, per month in the
      impugned order. Thus, the liability of paying a total of Rs. 2 lakhs under
      those heads cannot be foisted on the Developer alone in terms of Clause
H     9(c).
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD v. M/S. PARASVANATH DEVELOPERS                        167
     PVT. LTD. & ANR. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.]


       10.3 Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant     A
that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the
amount towards mental harassment and litigation costs is in the nature
of compensation that is solely payable by the Developer in terms of
Clause 9(c) of the Tripartite Agreement, cannot be accepted.
        11. We also find that the Appellant’s reliance on the revocation       B
deed dated 04.02.2015 is misplaced, as para 4 of this deed clearly states
that “the parties have accepted the award” and chosen to act in
accordance with the same. Thus, it cannot be argued that this revocation
deed displaces the arbitration award dated 09.01.2015 and the direction
therein for the Developer and CHB to pay compensation (if and when
determined) in the ratio of 70:30. In any case, this revocation deed may,      C
at best, arguably settle the rights and obligations or disputes between the
parties in respect of the Development Agreement dated 06.10.2006. In
our considered opinion, such settlement of rights and obligations cannot
be extended in a manner that enables the Developer and CHB to wriggle
out of their liability under the Tripartite Agreement with the Complainant.
                                                                               D
Thus, we find that the revocation deed dated 04.02.2015 cannot be invoked
by the Appellant to escape its liability flowing from the Tripartite
Agreement and the arbitration award dated 09.01.2015.
       12. We also note that the finding in the arbitration award dated
09.01.2015 as to the apportionment of liability between the Developer
and CHB to pay the principal sum and general compensation, must be             E
given effect. To this extent, we find merit in the argument raised by the
learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1 that the prior National
Commission order dated 05.03.2013 and the subsequent order of this
Court dated 21.04.2015 both relegate the inter se apportionment of liability
between the Developer and CHB to the arbitration award. Thus, the              F
split of 70:30 under the arbitration award must be given effect, having
attained finality.
       13. In any case, we find that such division is well-founded as the
sale proceeds from the flat buyers were apportioned in the same ratio of
70:30 between the Developer and CHB. This is supported by the Escrow
                                                                               G
Agreement dated 01.06.2007 executed by CHB and the Developer in
pursuance of the Development Agreement dated 06.10.2006. Clause
4(b) of this Escrow Agreement provides that 30% of the sale proceeds
in respect of the residential units would first be transferred to CHB, and
the remaining amount shall then be transferred to the Developer. In
view of this, we find that the amount directed to be paid by the National      H
168             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 15 S.C.R.


A     Commission in the impugned order must be paid by the Developer and
      CHB in the ratio of 70:30.
              14. With respect to the second issue concerning the enhancement
      of interest rate, Clause 9(d) of the Tripartite Agreement is relevant. As
      mentioned supra, this Clause requires the Developer and CHB to refund
B     the amounts received from the buyer with interest if the Developer is
      unable to deliver the unit to the buyer due to non-approvals from the
      competent authorities. Here, under Clause 9(d), the parties are liable to
      refund the principal sum in the ratio of 70:30 as they had received the
      sale proceeds in the same ratio. It has been brought to our notice that
      CHB has already paid 30% of the principal sum at 9% interest p.a. in
C     accordance with the directions of the National Commission in order dated
      05.03.2013 passed in a similar matter. Notably, the interest rate was
      revised to 10% p.a. in the impugned order and has been challenged by
      the Appellant. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same, as
      the increase was made by the National Commission in exercise of its
      discretionary power. It is possible that the National Commission chose
D
      to enhance the interest rate in view of the fact that it had already imposed
      lesser compensation than the significantly higher compensation stipulated
      under Clause 9(c). Thus, the contention of the Appellant on this front is
      liable to be dismissed.
             15. In view of the foregoing observations, we find that the National
E     Commission was right in directing the Developer and CHB to pay the
      principal sum of Rs. 1,03,31,250/- at 10% p.a. to the Complainant herein.
      Further, it is found that the direction to pay Rs. 2 lakhs in toto towards
      mental harassment and litigation costs in the ratio of 70:30 between the
      Developer and CHB, is also correct.
F            Accordingly, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. We note
      that the Appellant herein (CHB) has already paid its share of the principal
      sum along with interest at 9% p.a. Further, in pursuance of the order of
      this Court dated 04.12.2019, the Developer has also deposited the amount
      awarded by the National Commission with interest at 10% p.a.. In view
      of our findings, we now direct CHB to pay the remaining amount, i.e.
G
      30% of the total Rs. 2 lakhs awarded by the National Commission to the
      Complainant towards mental harassment and litigation charges, as well
      as an additional interest of 1% p.a. on its share of the principal sum. This
      amount shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of this
      order. The instant appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
H
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                         Appeal dismissed.