Aggrieved by the order dated 03.1.2007 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1655 of 1998, the original complainant has filed the present petition. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Lucknow. By the impugned -2- order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the deposited amount as the possession of the allotted plot could not be handed over by the Lucknow Development Authority to the petitioner-complainant because of an order passed by a civil court in the suit filed by a third party. 2. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Chadha, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Mohd. Parvez Dabas, counsel for the respondent-Lucknow Development Authority and have considered their submissions. The facts and circumstances, which led to the filing of the complaint, are amply noted in the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and need no repetition at our end. Mr. Chadha would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the State Commission has not taken a consistent view in the present case as it had taken in another case in First Appeal No. A/1828/97 titled as Lucknow Development Authority Versus Raj Kumar Verma. While dismissing the said appeal, the State Commission will be deemed to have affirmed the order dated 28.09.1995 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal District Forum, Lucknow in complaint No. 849 of 1994 titled as Raj Kumar Verma Versus Lucknow Development Authority. -3- In the said order, the said District Forum had allowed the complaint of the said complainant in the following manner: “The complainant has paid full amount of plot by 24.09.1988. After getting the total cost, it was the duty of the opponent to give possession to the complainant. If against opponent there was any case pending in court against the plot in question then in any case the opponent should not have collected money (cost) against the above said plot when the opponent was not in a position to give the possession. The opponent after getting the total cost of the above plot by not giving the possession to the party has done mistake in service to be provided. Hence, the complainant has the right to get the compensation and interest. In our opinion claimant has no right to get compensation due to increased cost of building material and labour etc., separately. However, as per our opinion it would be justified that the claimant should be given 18% annual interest as compensation on total amount of Rs. 79,350/- from 01.10.1988 to the date of actual possession of the plot given. ORDER Opponent is advised to give possession to the claimant within 60 days from the date of judgement. In addition to this opponent shall pay interest on total amount of Rs. 79,350/- (Seventy nine thousand three hundred and fifty only) from 01.10.1988 to the actual date of possession @ 18% per annum as compensation etc.” 3. Mr. Chadha contends that the petitioner, who is the allottee of the adjacent plot, is entitled to be treated at par with the case of Raj Kumar Verma Versus LDA (Supra) as decided by the District Forum. On the other hand, counsel representing the respondent-LDA submits that the said case was decided on its own facts and therefore, no parity can be -4- claimed. In any case, it is submitted that the appeal filed by the Lucknow Development Authority against the award of interest @ 18% per annum was dismissed by the State Commission at the admission stage itself on the ground of limitation and therefore the question as to whether the interest awarded by the District Forum was proper or not, has not been considered. 4. Having considered the matter from all possible angles, we are of the view that the State Commission erred in not granting interest for the delayed possession, the complainant having already deposited the entire consideration between the years from 1983 to1985. What should be the rate of interest, which would adequately compensate petitioner for the delay in handing over the possession of the plot remains to be considered. In this regard, we may refer to the two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5SCC65 and Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6SCC 711, where the Supreme Court considered this question in greater details and laid down the criteria for awarding compensation by way of interest in different circumstances. Going by the said decisions, we consider it appropriate to award interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposits of the amounts up till the date of payment. The amount of -5- interest which has accrued upto the date of this order shall be paid by the respondent-Authority to the petitioner-complainant within 45 days. The petitioner shall also be entitled to litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- throughout. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms. | 
