ORDER PER JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the State Commission) in first appeal No.972/2007 and 1195/2007 both sides i.e. complainant and M.P. Housing Board have filed these revision petitions purportedly under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. 3. The consumer dispute raised by the complainant related to a duplex house which the complainant was allotted by the Housing Board for a total consideration of Rs.9,98,000/-, the amount having been paid by the complainant by 2.12.2004. However, the possession of the house was not given and certain additional demands were made on account of -3- preferential location and stamp duty etc. in the year 2006 which were duly met by the complainant within the stipulated time. Though the house had certain defects/deficiencies, still the complainant preferred to take possession of the same without prejudice to his rights. The complaint was filed with the grievance that there was undue delay of about 23 months in handing over the possession of the house besides the Housing Board was not entitled to levy further charges on account of preferential location and that the registry of the land was not executed. 4. On consideration of the matter, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint by giving the following directions: - “Consequently, after admitting the complaint the order has been passed giving direction to the opponent to pay Rs.2,12,075/- and Rs.80,000/- as stamp duty & Registry fees and Rs.2000/- expense in the case total amount Rs.2,94,075/- to the complainant for the delay in construction and giving possession of the house. All the consideration demerits mentioned in the report of Shri Rajive Vajpayee will be removed within a month failing of which Rs.73,000/- will be paid to the complainant. In case of non compliance of the aforesaid direction, the complainant will remove the faults on his own expense and will b e entitled to get Rs.73,000/- from the opponent after one month of the -4- passing of the order, an interest of Rs.10% will be charged on all amounts. Case is dismissed, copy of the order be given as per rule to the concerning parties. 5. In the appeal, the State Commission has substantially modified the said order of the District Forum and reduced the amount of compensation by directing as under: - “As for above order, the commission arrives at the decision that the respondent is not responsible for the payment of additional amount of stamp duty but the respondent cannot charge the appellant for better location and corner charges. In the result both the appeals succeed in part and it is further directed that the respondent will not pay the appellant additional amount of Rs80,000/- of stamp duty. The respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.66,066/- that was charged for corner plot and better location and the amount by way of interest shall be calculated at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. 26.11.2006, the date of the appeal before distraction. Both parties shall bear their expense.” 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner complainant submits that the State Commission has erred in making the above directions as it -5- failed to appreciate the crux of the controversy between the parties and mislead itself in making the said order. We find force in this contention. 7. So far as the grievance of the complainant that the respondent Housing Board could not have charged additional amount for preferential location, we may straight away notice that the said grievance was unjustified as under the policy of the Housing Board it was entitled to charge additional amount for preferential location. In this case the house was built on a corner plot and has a park facing it. As regards the stamp duty charges, the Housing Board has utilized the same towards stamp duty and registration and, therefore, the complainant could not have made any claim on that account. However, the delay of about 17 months as noticed by the District Forum in handing over the possession of the house in question, despite the Housing Board having received entire consideration of Rs.9,98,000/- as far back as on 2nd December, 2004, there is no escape from the conclusion that this is a clear act of deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board for which they should compensate the complainant. What would be the amount of compensation, remains to be considered. 8. We are informed that in the scheme under which the house was to be built and sold to the complainant, there was a stipulation of payment -6- of interest @ 15% p.a. if there was any delay in making the payment of any instalment of the construction linked plan. We see no reason as to why the same yardstick of awarding interest @ 15% should not be adopted when it comes to award of compensation to the complainant for the delay in handing over the possession of the house. Under the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to modify the order passed by the fora below in the following manner: - “The M.P. Housing Board shall pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the deposited amount of Rs.9,98,000/- w.e.f. 2nd December, 2004 till the date of possession, after adjusting the interest which is claimed to have been paid by the Housing Board to the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own costs.” The revision petitions are disposed of in the above terms. | 
