KURIAN, J. - (1.) Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos.10484-10485/2016 & 10481-10482/2016.
(2.) The appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.5032-5033/2016, who is the legal representative of the original complainant, is before us aggrieved by the order dated 3.8.2015 passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Unfair Practice Enquiry No.40/2005 and Compensation Application No.39/2009 Paragraph nos.37 and 42 to 44 of the impugned order read as follows:- "37. The cancellation of allotment made in favour of the complainant deserves to be declared as wholly arbitrary, illegal and capricious. It is not in dispute that Smt. Gursharan Kaur had deposited three installments including the booking amount. The complainant, Dr. (Mrs.) Manjeet Kaur Monga deposited three other installments (total Rs. 4,53,850/-). She did not deposit further installments because the respondents did not complete the construction within the stipulated time. For the first time a vague statement about the construction was made in letter dated 26.12.2001, which was issued after 12 years of the booking. Even thereafter the respondents did not disclose the stage-wise progress in the construction work and, as mentioned above, they deliberately misconstrued the complainant's protest dated 22.05.2002 as her disinclination to take the flat. Between 2002 and 2005 i.e. the date on which the cancellation letter was issued, the respondents neither entered into any correspondence with the complainant nor apprised her about the progress made in the construction. Therefore, it must be held that the complainant was justified in not paying further installments of price and the respondents committed grave illegality by cancelling the allotment. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 42. In my view, even though the Tribunal cannot, in view of the law laid down in Ved Prakash Aggarwal's case, issue direction to the respondents to deliver physical possession of the flat, there is ample justification for awarding compensation by invoking Section 12-B of the Act and even otherwise, because the complainant and her legal representatives have been subjected to harassment for the period of more than 25 years. If the building had been completed within three years as promised by the respondents, the complainant may have got possession thereof and utilized the same. She could not do so during her lifetime and her legal representatives have been compelled to pursue this litigation. It is an admitted position that between August, 1989 and October, 1993, Smt. Gursharan Kaur and the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs. 4,53,850/- in the form of installments. The respondents not only failed to complete the project within the stipulated time but also failed to return the installments deposited by Smt. Gursharan Kaur and the complainant. The amount was returned only along with the cancellation letter and, as mentioned above, the complainant had returned the pay order with the legal notice sent on 07.09.2005. 43. Though Section 12-B empowers the Tribunal to award compensation but no criteria has been laid down by the Legislature for exercise of that power. However, keeping in view the fact that the construction of the flat was delayed by more than one decade and the amount of installments deposited by Smt. Gursharan Kaur and the complainant totalling Rs. 4,53,850/- was retained by the respondents for a period ranging from 15 years to more than 12 years, I feel that ends of justice would be served by directing the respondents to pay compound interest @ 15% per annum to the legal representatives of the complainant. 44. Accordingly, UTPE 90/2005 and C.A. 39/2009 are disposed of in the following terms : (i) It is declared that the respondents have acted in violation of Section 36-A(1)(i), (ii) and (ix) of the Act and they are guilty of unfair trade practice, (ii) The complainant's prayer for directing the respondents to deliver possession of Flat B-301 in Siddharth Shila Apartments is rejected, (iii) The respondents are directed to pay compound interest @ 15% per annum to the legal representatives of the complainant. The interest shall be calculated on each instalment paid by Smt. Gursharan Kaur and the complainant from the date of deposit till 30.04.2005 i.e. the date on which the allotment was cancelled, and (iv) The respondents shall pay Rs. 4,53,850/- and compound interest to the legal representatives of the complainant in terms of (iii) above within a period of three months from today. If the needful is not done, then the legal representatives of the complainant shall be entitled to file appropriate application for execution of this order."
(3.) Since the facts have clearly emerged from what we have extracted above, we need not to go into the factual matrix. The contention of the appellant is that since the allotment has been cancelled, the appellant should be entitled to compound interest @ 15% from the original dates of payment from 1989 till the date of payment and there is no justification in limiting the interest to 30.04.2005.;