PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by Shri Joginder Singh who is the original complainant. He purchased a MIG flat No.2571 in Sector-15 (Part-II), Sonepat from the respondent Board. An allotment letter was issued on 7.3.2002 to the petitioner with a total price fixed at Rs.8 lakh out of which the petitioner deposited Rs.4,92,013/-. Later on vide his letter dated 27.9.2003 the petitioner surrendered the flat and requested the respondent Board to refund the deposited amount. The respondent sent a cheque dated 26.4.2004 for Rs.2,45,994/- which was sent back by the petitioner. The respondent again sent the cheque to the petitioner vide its letter dated 6.7.2004. The petitioner, however, requested for the remaining amount but the respondent pointed out that the remaining amount had been deducted as per rules on account of the surrender. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the response of the respondents, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum for refund of the entire amount deposited by him. Upon notice, the opposite parties resisted the claim of the complainant stating that the complainant had surrendered the flat and hence the respondent Board had refunded the amount of the deposit after making deductions as per the policy of the Board. 3. On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum, vide its order dated 30.5.2005, accepted the complaint of the petitioner by granting the following relief: - his Forum directs the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.4,92,013/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of its deposit till its actual realization. Further the respondents are directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/- only for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment and further to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- only under the head of litigation expenses. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the respondent Board filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (tate Commissionfor short) challenging the said order. Vide its order dated 30.12.2010, the State Commission accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and also dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner has now filed the present revision petition challenging the impugned order of the State Commission. 5. We have heard Mrs. Kiran Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the judgment of Honle High Court in the case of Haryaba Urban Development Authority vs. M/s Zuari Industries 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 104 (P & H) relied upon by the State Commission does not apply to the present case because the respondents never offered 90% amount of the total bid amount to the petitioner nor was the complaint of the petitioner for restoration of the property surrendered. She also pointed out that the amount of Rs.2,45,994/- offered by the respondents was never accepted by the petitioner. The State Commission had, therefore, gravely erred by returning its finding in favour of the respondents on erroneous facts and wrong appreciation of the citation. The ruling of the High Court in question did not apply to the present case and the petitioner was entitled to the refund of the full deposited amount with 12% interest thereon from the date of surrender till the date of actual payment or, at least, 90% of the total bid money alongwith compensation and cost. She submitted that the District Forum had taken due note of the claim of the petitioner and, in the given facts and circumstances, rightly directed the respondents to refund the entire amount of deposit of Rs.4,92,013/- with interest, compensation and cost. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the flat in question was surrendered voluntarily by the petitioner giving the reason that he was not in a position to deposit the remaining instalment due to unavoidable circumstances and family problems. In view of the circumstances of the petitioner and his specific request, the respondents agreed to it and allowed the refund of the deposited amount after making deductions therefrom as per the policy of the respondent Board. He submitted that the petitioner had also sent a letter dated 3.3.2004 to the respondents stating therein that he accepted the policy of the Board and was ready to accept the amount after deducting the 10% of the cost, interest, wear & tear, etc. He, therefore, pleaded that the petitioner could not be allowed to change his stance now and claim full refund of the deposit. There was, therefore, no substance in the revision petition and the same was liable for dismissal. 8. The only issue which has arisen for our consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to full refund of the deposit as claimed by him or the amount of refund which has been allowed by the respondents after making deductions in accordance with the policy of the Board. This is so because, it is accepted by the petitioner that he is not entitled to full refund of the deposit but only the amount of refund which would be due to him after making deduction of 10% of the cost of the flat according to the policy of the respondent Board. In this context, it is noted that in terms of the policy followed by the Board, in such cases the bidder is allowed to surrender the property after forfeiting 10% of the total bid. In addition, the bidder is also liable for interest on overdue installments. Since the petitioner had disputed that the amount of Rs.2,45,993.58P refunded by the Board (which he did not accept) was not in accordance with the calculations as per the policy followed by the respondent Board, we directed both the respondent Board and the petitioner to file statements showing calculation of the amount of refund according to their respective stands on the interest leviable for delay/default in paying the due installments. Both the statements are placed on record. 9. Statement of calculations filed by respondent Board shows that interest has been calculated by it on reducing balance of overdue installments but while doing so, it has charged interest over interest which is not permissible as per its declared policy submitted before us. In view of this, the amount of Rs.2,45,993.58 arrived at is incorrect. On the other hand, the statement filed by the petitioner has given calculation of interest amount on each overdue installment for the periods of delay of the particular installment and the total amount of simple interest calculated @16% p.a. on the overdue installment as per the agreement which comes to Rs.3,490.17 . It is not under dispute that the total money deposited by the petitioner with the respondent Board is Rs.4,90,213/-. If we deduct 10% of the total bid amount of Rs.8 lakh, i.e., Rs.80,000/- along with Rs.3,490.17 on account of simple interest on overdue installments from the total money deposited by the petitioner, the net refundable amount comes to Rs.4,06,722.83 which was required to be refunded by the respondent Board to the petitioner on accepting the surrender of the plot made by the petitioner in accordance with the Board policy. We hold that this amount of Rs.4,06,722/- shall be payable with effect from 01.10.2003 since the plot was surrendered by the petitioner to the Board on 27.09.2003. It is not in dispute that the cheque of Rs.2,45,993.58 sent by Board to the petitioner was refused by him and returned to the former. However, during the pendency of this petition before us, as per our interim order dated 19.10.2011, the Board released an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- to the petitioner on ad hoc basis, subject to adjustment against the final amount of refund. This amount has been received by the petitioner. 10. In view of this, we partly allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and direct as under:- (i) The respondent authority shall release the balance amount of Rs.91,722/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 16% per annum on the full amount of Rs.4,06,722/- for the period from 01.10.2003 till 19.10.2011 and on the balance amount of Rs.91,722/- (Rs.4,06,722-Rs.3,15,000/-) from 20.10.2011 till the actual payment. (ii) The respondent Board shall pay Rs.5,000/- by way of cost of litigation to the petitioner; (iii) This order shall be complied with by making the aforesaid payment to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. (iv) In case the respondent Board fails to comply with this order within the period of 30 days, it shall be liable to pay interest @ 16% per annum on the total awarded amount in accordance with this order.