REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The present revision petition no. 69 of 2017 has been filed against the judgment dated 29th September 2016 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 768 of 2013. 2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner had purchased a plot no.33 in King City Rajpura, Punjab measuring 356 square yards on the basis of price list dated 10.10.2006 and Rs.4,00,500/- was paid to the respondents/ opposite parties. It was alleged that from 09.10.2006 to 18.11.2006, the petitioner wrote letters to the respondent for providing an agreement to sell/ allotment letter to them. Finally, allotment letter was given and the demands were raised which were complied by the petitioner. In all the petitioner had paid Rs.9,29,160/- to the respondent. The possession was due on 31.03.2008 but the same was not handed over. On 29.04.2008, further amount was deposited with the respondents. On 18.04.2007 a plot buyer agreement was executed on the basis of the price list dated 10.10.2006. Despite that the possession was not delivered ultimately the petitioners had filed a complaint with the Chandigarh Forum which was rejected on the ground of jurisdiction. Thereafter the complaint was filed before the District Forum at Delhi. The petitioner had made a prayer for an award of compensation of Rs.5.00 lakh for causing mental harassment and agony, Rs.30,000/- for grant of litigation expenses and direction not to press for demand of Rs.50,000/- by the respondent in the name of club charges and for not delaying the possession. Alternative prayer was made for the refund of the amount with interest. 3. The respondent/ opposite party contested the aforesaid complaint by filing written version, wherein execution of Buyer Agreement with the petitioner was admitted. The amount deposited by the petitioner with the respondent was also admitted. It was alleged that the offer letter was sent to the petitioner on 31.03.2008 subject to clearance of all outstanding dues relating to the possession. It was alleged that the petitioner failed to make the payment, as such there was no deficiency on its part. It was further alleged that the amount claimed from the petitioner was as per the plot buyer agreement. A rebate of 7% was also allowed to the petitioner. It was also alleged that the club charges were to be paid additionally apart from the sale price. 4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 07.05.2013 while allowing the complaint has observed as under: “Another question which has been raised by the complainant is with regard to the delay of construction of the houses in question and non-development of amenities which have been promised by the opposite party in the brochure. There is no denial of this fact that the construction has been delayed. The complainant has deposited money in the year 2006 and there is no external development of the area even up to the August 2011 when the paper no. 13 an e-mail was sent by the complainant of which no reply has been given by the opposite party nor it has been denied in the reply or on oath in affidavit filed on record. This fact has not been denied that the construction activity of the commercial complex, schools and club has not been undertaken. The offer of possession without developing facilities as promised itself amounts to deficiency. The complainant has shown is inclination of getting deposited amount with interest. In view of the fact that the basic amenities are not yet developed the offer of possession is meaningless. The demand of club charges without providing any facility is illegal. In the above circumstances, we hold the opposite party deficient in providing the services and guilty of unfair and trade practice. We allow this complaint. The OP is directed to refund to the complainant the entire amount deposited by the complainant with the Op together with @ 12% interest thereon from the date of deposit of that amount and till it is finally paid. We further award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant’s. This amount shall also include the cost of litigation”. 5. Dis-satisfied by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/ complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission for enhancement of interest from 12% to 18%. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal held as under: “Reading the aforesaid judgment, it cannot be said that irrespective of facts of each case, the Forum must grant interest at a uniform rate of 18% per annum where the refund of deposit is ordered. The grant of compensation is based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. Nothing has been alleged about the loss or injury suffered by appellants/ complainants in the complaint filed before the District Forum. For the first time, the appellants/ complainants have alleged in the appeal that they are living in a rented accommodation. In the complaint case, no such allegations are there. Only in the prayer clause, prayer is made for the refund of rent paid without stating anything in this regard in the complaint case. The address of alleged rental property was also not given. The same is also not stated in the appeal. No evidence by way of affidavit was also filed by appellants/ complainants before the District Forum. The judgment of Subhash Chander Mahajan (supra) relied upon by appellants/ complainants are also not applicable to the facts of the present case. The District Forum has considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter has ordered for refund of entire amount deposited by the appellants/ complainants with the respondents/ OPs with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till it is finally paid. A compensation of Rs.50,000/- is also awarded to appellants/ complainants on account of harassment suffered by them. The rate of interest awarded is just and reasonable. In view of above discussions, we find no reasons for awarding higher rate of interest as is contended by appellants/ complainants. There is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly the same stands dismissed.” 6. Hence, the present revision petition. 7. We have heard the petitioner no. 1 who is present in person. The only contention of the petitioner was that the NCDRC and the Supreme Court have awarded 18% interest in some cases. He gave no further justification as to why interest should be enhanced in this case. Going by the facts of the case we agree with the State Commission that the rate of interest and compensation is to be given depending on the facts of each case. The District Forum in a very detailed order has considered all the facts of the case and awarded the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum as also compensation of Rs.50,000/-. We also note that in this particular case he was offered possession on 31.03.2008 well within the time by which the possession be given as per the agreement on 31.07.2008. The petitioner chose not to take the possession only on the grounds that he was asked to pay Rs.50,000/- for the club. The agreement makes it very clear that the membership of the club is optional. He has nowhere brought on record that he had exercised his option not to use the club in writing to the respondent. The petitioner has hence failed to give adequate justifications for enhancement of interest. 8. Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed. | 
