Aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2007 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Appeal -2- No. 1639 of 1997, the original complainant has filed this petition purportedly under Section 21-B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) against order dated 07.8.1997 passed by the District Forum-II Lucknow in complaint case No. 90 of 1995 by which order, the complaint was partly allowed and the Lucknow Development Authority was directed to pay a compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month with effect from 01.10.1994 to 31.7.1997, the possession of the flat in question having been handed over on 10.06.1998. In appeal the State Commission set aside/modified the said direction and directed the Lucknow Development Authority to pay only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as the cost of the proceedings. 2. We have heard Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Jyoti Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent and have considered their submissions. Limited notice was issued to the respondent only on the question of award of compensation for the period from 01.10.1994 to 31.7.1997. Mr. Pattjoshi contended that although the possession was first time offered in the year 1994 but since the construction was not complete, it cannot be said that the possession was actually handed over and the possession of the flat in question has actually handed over some time in 1998. He contends that -3- the District Forum was therefore fully justified in awarding the compensation for the period of delay in handing over the possession with effect from 01.10.1994 to 31.07.1997 despite the full payment of the flat in question having been made on 31.5.1994. Counsel for the respondent-Lucknow Development Authority however, contends that since the complainant-petitioner had defaulted in making compliance of other directions with regard to the submission of ground/lease rent, stamp paper and registration charges, the possession could not be handed over, although the flat in question was complete in all respects. 3. We have considered the above submissions and we are of the view that even if there was some delay in remitting the ground/lease rent, stamp papers etc., there was initial delay of about three years in handing over the actual possession of the flat in question. The District Forum was therefore justified in awarding a compensation for the said delay. The compensation so fixed by the District Forum does not appear to be harsh or excessive, because if the interest had been awarded @ 10% it would have come to almost the same amount as was assessed by the District Forum and the order of the District Forum so far as it had awarded a compensation @ Rs. 4,000/- per month with effect from 1.10.1994 to 31.7.1997 should be restored. -4- 4. We order accordingly. The amount of compensation shall be paid within a period of six weeks from today. Copy of the order be given Dasti to the counsel for the Respondent for compliance. | 
