This matter arises from a consumer complaint filed by Shri H. Acharyya against the Orissa State Housing Board (OSHB) in 1994. The Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission decided the matter on 15.12.1998, concluding that the Complainant was no longer interested in taking any apartment from OP/OSHB and therefore, the only issue to be decided was the rate of interest with which the amount deposited by him would need to be refunded by OSHB. The State Commission after detailed consideration of all the aspects gave the following decision: “The complainant is certainly entitled to damages which may be calculated at the same rate at which the interest might have been payable. Taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter and conduct of each of the parties, we think it appropriate to direct the OrissaState Housing Board to refund the deposited amount of Rs.3,25,000 with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. w.e.f. 1.1.95 upto the date of payment in view of the fact that the demand for refund of the deposited amount was made in July, 1994.” 2. In the appeal against the above order, by the OSHB, the National Commission took into consideration the cross appeal by the Complainant Shri H. Acharyya filed against the same order of the State Commission in which enhancement of interest rate was sought so as to give him a substantial amount by way of damages. The National Commission relied upon its decision in HUDA Vs. Darshan Kumar, pronounced on 31.8.2001 in Revision Petition No.1197 of 1998, and enhanced the interest to 18% per year. The National Commission also directed it will be payable after allowing a period of two years from the date of payment of each installment. The order of the National Commission also shows the specific date from which 18% interest to be paid on the total amount of Rs.3,25,000/- paid by Shri Acharyya in eleven installments. In view of this enhancement from 15% to 18%, the appeal filed by OP/OSHB was pronounced as having failed and been dismissed. 3. Both parties to the proceedings before the National Commission went in appeal to the Apex Court. Their appeals have been allowed and the matter has been remanded to the National Commission for passing a fresh order. The operative part of this order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, pronounced on 30.4.2009, reads as follows:- “The National Commission has awarded 18% interest per annum to the respondent-complainant on the basis of an earlier decision of the Commission in the case of HUDA Vs. Darsh Kumar & others (Revision Petition No.1197 of 1998). The decision in Darsh Kumar’s case has been overruled by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 3 SCC 65. Following the said decision, these appeals are allowed the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the National Commission to pass a fresh order in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Balbir Singh’s case (supra) and after hearing both the parties. No order as to costs.” 4. In this landmark judgment the Apex Court has made it categorically clear that awarding interest at a uniform rate of 18% per annum, irrespective of the facts of each case, is unsustainable. Award of compensation must vary from case to case, depending on the facts of each case. Compensation is a recompense for the loss or injury. It therefore, necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. 5. If interest is awarded by way of compensation, it must be shown that there is relationship between the amount awarded and the default/unjustifiable delay/harassment. It is thus necessary that there be separate amounts under each such head with reasons why such award is justified. However, the principle that interest must be granted at the current rate of interest is only applicable where the proceedings are for recovery of debt or damages. They apply where a refund of amount is being claimed and the direction is to refund amounts with interest. The principles that apply to grant of interest, do not apply to grant of compensation. For this reason also it is necessary to consider facts of each case separately and award compensation under various heads. 6. In compliance with the above order of the Apex Court, the matter has been re-considered by this Commission. The complainant in person and the counsel for the OP/OSHB have been heard on the issue of interest as compensation in part. 7. Making fresh written submission, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court, the appellant/complainant has drawn our attention to the following— a. Possession of the flat was to be handed over by 30.6.1992 and the deposit amount was refunded to him on 8.3.1999. b. The three-bed-room flat would have fetched a rent of Rs.6000 a month in this period. c. The project was eventually completed in 1998. The price of these flats in June 1998, as advertised by the OP/OSHB, was Rs. 7.75 lakhs. Therefore, the loss of capital appreciation suffered by him was Rs.4.5 lakhs. d. The refund, as per orders of the Apex Court, should be from the date of deposit and not after two years from the date of each deposit, as ordered by the National Commission on 31.3.2003. 8. Based on the above, the complainant has claimed interest at 18% for the intervening period of six years and eight months. He has accordingly filed a computation, which shows the total interest payable as Rs.4,51,275. During the course of arguments, the complainant also informed that to fund this acquisition he had raise a loan of Rs 2.5 lakhs from the IDBI at 11% interest and withdrawn Rs.75,000/- from his Provident Fund. EPF statements for 1996 and 1997 show that he would have lost 12 to 13.25 % interest on this withdrawal. He drew our attention to the statements of account, which shows that when he retired as AGM, IDBI, an amount of Rs.1,57,000/- was deducted from his retirement benefits towards balance of the housing loan and Rs.1,11,053/- towards interest. 9. The above computation was not disputed on behalf of the OP but learned counsel for the OSHB/OP argued that under the scheme of OSHB, there was no provision for payment of interest on refunds. Therefore, no interest is payable. This argument has to be rejected, as this was not a case of voluntary withdrawal by the complainant. The construction on this project did not even start by the date of assured delivery. The alternative offered was an altogether new proposal, very different in cost and content. The complainant was therefore, well within his right not to accept it. More than any thing else, having paid the entire amount as required by the OSHB/OP, the complainant had to wait for six years and eight months, for its refund. For this entire duration, the amount deposited by the complainant was available to the OP for deployment on their projects. 10. Had the complainant not sought refund and had he accepted the revised terms of allotment, he could have got a flat of which the price in the market (as per the advertisement of the OP/OSHB) would be Rs.7.75 lakhs. However, the loss he actually suffered due to his withdrawal from allotment, was— a. Interest liability of over Rs.1 lakh on the housing loan of Rs.2.5 lakhs taken by him. b. Loss of interest on his EPF withdrawals, which would be with cumulative impact. Going by the material on record, this itself would be about Rs.60-65,000/- for the entire duration of blockage of this fund. c. The harassment undergone by the Complainant in securing refund of his deposited amount. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate to fix it at Rs.50,000/-. d. Entirely apart from the need to compensate him for the above, his deposit of Rs.3.25 lakhs would have earned him interest at savings bank rate of 6 to 7% for this period of over 6 years, had it been kept in a bank instead of being kept with the OSHB. This would have fetched about Rs 125,000, during the relevant period. 11. Accordingly, his entitlement towards additional financial liability incurred and to receive compensation of the harassment undergone would be of the order of about Rs.3.2 to 3.5 lakhs. The interest awarded by the State Commission at the rate of 15% on the deposit of Rs.3.25 lakhs for six years would compensate him only to the extent of about Rs.2.9 lakhs. Therefore, in our view this is a fit case for award of interest (inclusive of compensation) in the form of simple interest at 18% per year for the relevant period between 1992 and 1999. 12. For the reasons detailed above, First Appeal No. 361 of 2001, filed by the Complainant/A. Acharyya against the OP/Orissa State Housing Board is allowed. Interest (inclusive of compensation) payable to him by the OSHB, is enhanced from 15% to 18%. This interest shall be calculated from the date on which each specific installments was paid by the Complainant. The period of payment of interest shall end on the date on which the entire deposited amount of Rs.3,25,000/- was refunded to the Complainant by the OP/OSHB, in 1999. Interest already paid, if any, shall be deducted from the total payable amount. The entire amount so computed, shall be paid by the OSHB within a period of two months, from the date of this order. Failing this, additional interest of 3% shall be payable for the duration of the delay. First Appeal No.53 of1999 filed by OP/OSHB against the Complainant/ A. Acharyya, is dismissed for want of merit. The parties shall bear their own costs. | 
