JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Sh. Amar Singh Tiwari, the complainant applied for registration in the Office of the Agra Development Authority, OP, for allotment of a house, on 25.03.1981. On 24.08.1992, the house was allotted to the complainant by virtue of a lottery. The allotment letter was received on 13.01.1993. The complainant deposited amount of Rs.15,000/- through demand draft on 02.02.1993. Vide letter dated 22.04.1993, the complainant was informed that he has been allotted the MIG house No.144 in Shastripuram. The complainant deposited ₹ 1,20,000/- till 18.02.1994. 2. However, he was not given the possession of the house. The complainant protested vide letter dated 08.09.1994, but it did not ring the bell. It also transpired that the house allotted to the complainant was not in accordance with the quality standard as basic amenities of road / sewer, water and electricity were not provided in the whole colony. The complainant protested vide letter dated 26.07.1996. His protest did not bring the desired result. 3. In the year 1999, he moved an application before the consumer forum with the prayer that he should be refunded a sum of ₹ 1,40,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. He further demanded compensation in the sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- and ₹ 25,000/- for physical and mental inconvenience as well as ₹ 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. It is noteworthy that he did not ask for the possession of the house. 4. The OP contended that the apartment was of quality standard. It was averred that other persons were living in the vicinity, but they had never complained. The OP submitted that it is ready to handover the possession if the complainant completes the requisite formalities on non-judicial stamp paper regarding possession. 5. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to refund the sum of ₹ 1,40,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit to 31.03.1995, ₹ 5,000/- as compensation was also awarded. 6. The OP filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission confirmed the findings given by the District Forum. 7. We have heard the counsel for the parties. It is difficult to fathom why did the complainant reject the offer of possession of the said flat. Everybody knows the quality of the construction raised by the Government bodies. A house constructed by the Government Body cannot be equated with a private house built by a Private Builder. Again, there is lot of difference in prices in both types of the flats. Those who get/buy flats from the Government Bodies, are considered to be lucky people. 8. The OP/petitioner was still within its right to forfeit the said amount. The complainant has withdrawn himself from the Scheme, without any rhyme or reason. The complainant had no right to ditch the Government Body like this. Counsel for the complainant / respondent vehemently argued that she should be given interest @ 20-25% p.a. as the petitioner has mentioned in the default clause. That case is different. That is agreed by both the parties. The allottees may or may not sign such like documents. It does not, however, mean that the petitioner should be dealt with the same coin. If this theory is accepted, then everybody will deposit the amount and get it withdrawn @ 25% - 18% p.a., which is more than the saving policy. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that both the fora below have given interest at a higher rate. Normally, a person earns 9-10% in the FDRs in any of the recognized banks. 9. Keeping in view the above said facts, we reduce the interest rate from 18% p.a., to 12% p.a., only. Rest of the order of the District Forum, is hereby confirmed. The total amount be paid to the complainant, within 8 weeks’ from the date of receipt of this order, else, the interest rate would stand enhanced to 18% p.a. from 12% p.a. 10. Revision petition stands disposed of. | 
