PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by Premchand Khilananai who was the original complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (District Forum, for short). Respondents herein were OPs 1 & 2 respectively. The petitioner filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for deficiency, unfair trade practice and mental harassment and also praying for direction to the OPs to provide the facility of club house, land escaping, gas pipeline, fire fighting and to grant interest @ 24% on the deposited amount as well as removal of the defects of the house in question. The District Forum vide its order dated 1.7.2011 allowed the complaint by directing the OPs to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant / petitioner with the OPs till the date of delivery of possession, i.e., 20.4.2009. Apart from it, the OPs were directed to complete the facilities of club house, land escaping, gas pipeline and fire fighting unit for the multi-storied building and to pay compensation of Rs.7,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant along with cost of litigation quantified at Rs.1,000/- Both the complainant and the OPs filed appeals against this order before the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (tate Commissionfor short). The State Commission vide its common order dated 8.2.2012, dismissed the appeal of the complainant/petitioner and partly accepted the appeal of the OP Board by setting aside the direction of the District Forum regarding the payment of interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant with the OPs but retaining and upholding the rest of the order of the District Forum. It is against this impugned order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. We have heard Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also perused the impugned order. The State Commission while partly accepting the appeal of the respondent Board and modifying the order of the District Forum in respect of the payment of interest has made the following observations in para 10 of the impugned order:- 0. From the documents which have been filed by the both parties, it is also clear that time was not fixed for construction and no final date of delivery of possession was fixed by the Housing Board. As it was a case of construction of huge multistoried building for many persons and so naturally its construction, arrangements for facilities which were required to be provided for so many families, has taken time and such huge building cannot be constructed within a short duration. We find that in the facts of the case, if third installment of tentative cost was paid on 30.11.06 and then possession was handed over in the month of April 2009, then intervening time was only that of two years and few months, which cannot be said very much excessive, in the facts of the case in hand, which may amount deficiency in service. In the facts of the present case when time was not the essence of the contract and time limit was not fixed by the parties for construction of Flat and handing over possession of the same, then if a big building is constructed in 2.3 years, which was consisting of 24 senior HIG Flats and some other type of Flats also, in all 180 Flats in two Blocks, then the time taken for construction of such buildings cannot be said to be very much excessive. 3. The State Commission has dealt with the grounds raised by the petitioner at great length and has also taken into consideration the documents placed by the petitioner before it in support of his claim. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Nothing has been placed before us, which would persuade us to take a different view. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Revision petition stands dismissed in limine.