Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Delay in filing the Revision Petitions are condoned upon a consideration of the reasons stated in IA/10009/2024 and IA/10011/2024 and those adduced during the hearing. The complaint in both the cases was allowed by the District Forum. The Petitioners herein –M.P. Housing Board went in appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission partially modified the orders of the District Forum. It set aside the directions of the District Forum contained in Para 23(a) and 23(c) with respect to enhancement of the price of plot and the house and with respect to payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- respectively. Rest of the order of the District forum was maintained. Vide directions in Para 23(b), the District Forum had awarded interest @8% p.a. on the amount deposited as delay compensation. The main challenge in these Revision Petitions is with respect to the rate of interest awarded on the delay compensation. The Petitioners urge that the interest rate awarded by the Fora below is exorbitant. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the Revisionist is that under the rules governing the Housing Board, it is only 4% interest that is permissible but in the present case, since the allotment was under a self-financing scheme and the housing board is not a profiteering body therefore in view of the law laid down in the case of Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711, there was no reason to award any delay compensation. The contention raised in the revision is that the delay had been occasioned in the construction and escalation in the price due to reasons beyond the control of the board. Admittedly, the constructions were to be completed and handed over by July 2010. This was a construction with regard to Middle Income Group Deluxe Units that were allotted by way of a lottery to the Complainants. Since the unit was not delivered within the expected time, the same also resulted in the escalation of the price and this deficiency therefore caused loss to the Complainants. It is also undisputed that the Complainants had taken loans from Banks and even otherwise the Housing Board was charging 16% interest on delayed payment. Consequently, the Complainants had to continuously pay the interest on the bank loans that they had taken and not only this they were compelled to part with more money towards the escalated price which was demanded through the letter dated 11.01.2012. The enhanced amount was found by the State Commission to be payable but the fact that there was a delay on the part of the Housing Board in delivering the possession was established. The State Commission therefore partly allowed the appeal in favour of the Housing Board but confirmed the order regarding the findings on the delay of delivery of possession and the entitlement of the Complainants to delay compensation. It may be mentioned that even in cases where a timeline for delivery of possession has not been specifically fixed, the apex court in the case of Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. Vs. Trevor D’Lima & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 442 observed in paragraph 15 as follows:- "15. Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e. the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014….” In this case, the findings recorded by both the Forums are that the timeline was violated and there was a delay. There is no factual error pointed out on that score and therefore the findings are affirmed. Learned Counsel for the Revisionist then urged regarding the rate of interest contending that the Housing Board is a non-profitable organisation and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority (Supra), the delay compensation is not payable. There is no such exception carved out at least under any law of the State Legislature for the time being in force governing allotments that the Housing Board is exempt from paying any delay compensation or otherwise and allottees under the scheme of the Housing Board are not entitled to claim delay compensation. The question as to whether any such contention can be accepted is to be viewed from the point of view of several judgments of the Apex Court which award delay compensation. They are as follows. 1. Sivarama Sarma Jonnalagadda Vs. Maruthi Corporation Limited 2021 SCC OnLince NCDRC 823 2. Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna (2021) 3 SCC 241 3.Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 16 SCC 512 4. Supertech Ltd Vs. Rajni Goyal (2019) 17 SCC 681 The Complainants had to wait for no fault of theirs and on the other hand the Housing Board prolonged the matter for reasons best known to them. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate their contention that they could not complete the constructions or deliver the house for any reason beyond their control except for saying that the escalation in the price was beyond their control. This cannot be an excuse for not completing the constructions and handing it over to the allottees. On a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that both the Fora below have appropriately awarded a just and fair rate of interest on the delay compensation and we do not find any reason to interfere with their findings on this aspect as well. No other illegality or material irregularity is observed so as to warrant exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by this Commission. Hence, the impugned orders of the State Commission, passed in both the cases, are upheld. Accordingly, both the Revision Petitions are dismissed. All other pending IAs also stand disposed of. | 
