ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.12.2010 of the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission in appeal no. 1604 of 2004, upholding the order dated 10.09.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short, he District Forum on the complaint filed by the respondent in this petition. By this order, the District Forum directed as under: 0. To sum up, complaint in hand is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.2500/- and OPs are directed to do as under:- (i) to make refund of Rs.94,109/- to the complainant being the price paid by the complainant for excess area with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit i.e., 18.04.1996 till realisation, fully detailed in para no. 4 of this judgment; (ii) to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.15,750/- which he suffered duly detailed in para no. 5 of this judgment; (iii) to pay to the complainant compensation amounting to Rs.8,57,000/- as detailed in para no. 6 of this judgment; (iv) to permit the complainant 3 years period w.e.f. 10.12.2002 for raising construction over the plot allotted without charging any extension fee Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment failing which the amount of Rs.15,750/- and also the compensation amounting to Rs.8,57,000/- would carry interest @ 9% per annum till realisation 2. Notice limited to the award of interest @ 18% and also compensation of Rs.8,57,000/- was issued in this case on 06.04.2011. On the next date (19.07.2011), one Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Advocate appeared as proxy counsel on behalf of the arguing counsel Mr. Tarunvir S, Advocate. On that date Mr. Joshi requested seven days for filing vakalatnama. The matter was adjourned to 15.09.2011 for admission hearing with clear understanding that it may be finally disposed of at the stage of admission itself. On 15.09.2011, however, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant though the matter was passed over once. Hence, the order in this case is being passed treating the respondent ex parte. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, the main point urged is that compensation of Rs.8,57,000/- awarded by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission in the impugned order is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. After a rather unnecessarily lengthy discussion, the District Forum added up all the installment amounts deposited by the complainant/respondent towards the cost of the plot and awarded that total amount as compensation, rounding it off to Rs.8,57,000/-. There is no earthly justification for this part of the award even though there was considerable delay and consequent harassment of the complainant in handing over possession of the plot in question. The fact is that even the complainant did not seek compensation of this order. In his complaint, he prayed for compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards harassment and mental agony. It is, therefore, surprising that the State Commission also thought it fit to go along with the strange logic underlying this part of the award of the District Forum. 4. The law on the subject of compensation in cases of deficiency in service in allotment of housing plots, ready-built flats, etc., is well settled and was enunciated in detail by the Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh [(2004) 5 SC 65] and [(2005) 9 SCC 573]. In the context of the present case, the following paragraph of the judgment dated 03.12.2004 of the Court is particularly relevant: . Learned Senior Counsel submits that in case of delivery of possession, albeit belatedly, the rate of interest could be different from non-delivery of possession/cancellation of scheme/offer of alternative plots/flats at higher price which has already been dealt with by this Court in Balbir Singh case. Normally, a case of delivery of possession, though belatedly, stands on a different footing from non-delivery of possession at all because in case of delivery of possession, though belatedly, the allottee also enjoys the benefit of plot/flat. Generally, in such a situation the rate of interest should not exceed 12%. However, as already observed by this Court in Balbir Singh case no hard-and-fast rules can be laid down. In a specific case where it is found that delay was culpable and there is no contributory negligence by the allottee resulting in harassment/injury, both mental and physical, the Forum/Commission would not be precluded from making an award in excess of 12% interest per annum. Such order must, however, be supported with reasons 5. Keeping in view the ratio of this decision, the interest of justice and equity would be adequately met if the petitioner is directed to pay to the respondent interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of refund of Rs.94,109/- from the date of deposit till payment as well as on the amounts of installments deposited by the latter towards the cost of the plot from the dates of deposit of the respective installments till the date of handing over physical possession of the plot. This payment may be made within six weeks of the date of this order. 6. The revision petition is disposed of in the foregoing terms.