Shimla Development Authority-opposite party No. 2 in the original complaint has preferred this appeal against the orders dated 20.12.1996 and 1.1.1997 passed by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, he State Commission in complaint case No. 21 of 1990. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant, namely, Vijay Kumar Joshi against the appellant and the State of Himachal Pradesh and H. P. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran by giving the following direction to the appellant :- n view of the above discussion, the opposite party is directed to pay interest to the complainant on the amount of Rs.1,44,000/- for the period with effect from 1.1.1990 to 23.4.1991 @ 18% per annum. The interest so ordered to be paid can be adjusted by the opposite party against the balance payment the complainant has to pay if not already paid within a period of one month. In case the balance amount already stands paid, the amount of interest as directed shall be payable within one month to the complainant. In case of failure to do so, the complainant shall further be allowed interest @18% on the aforementioned amount from the date of order till actual payment. The other relief(s) prayed for in the complaint are disallowed. The complainant shall be entitled to the costs in the present proceedings from the opposite party which we assess at Rs.3,000/- -3- 01.01.1997. It is, therefore, ordered that wherever the date of delivery of the possession of the house to the complainant in the aforementioned order dated 20.12.1996 has been mentioned as 24.4.1991, it should be read as 22.4.1994 and the order stands corrected accordingly. In view of such correction, the period as mentioned in the operative part of the order i.e. ith effect from 1.1.1990 to 23.4.1991is also required to be corrected and it should be read in its place as ith effect from 1.1.1990 to 21.4.1994. The order stands corrected to the above extent. It would appear that the said appeal filed by the appellant came up for hearing before this Commission alongwith batch of revision petitions bearing No. 832 of 1997, 846 of 1997 and 877 of 1997, and was disposed of by this Commission vide order dated 22.11.2001 by observing as under:- n view of our order in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Darsh Kumar (Revision Petition 1197 of 1998), where we have upheld the award of interest even at the rate of 18% per annum, in similar circumstances, these revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order passed by this Commission, Shimla Development Authority has filed civil appeal No. 7649 of 2002 in the Supreme Court, which has been decided by Honle Supreme Court vide order dated 22.1.2009 and the appeal has been remitted -4- to this Commission for deciding the same afresh by observing as under:- eard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent although notice has been served. The impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 22.11.2001 has been passed on the basis of the earlier decision of the National Commission in Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Darsh Kumar. Revision petition No. 1197/1998 decided on 31.08.2001. In Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004 (5) SCC 65), the view taken in Darsh Kumar (supra) has not been accepted. The National Commission in Darsh Kumar (supra) case had granted interest at the rate of 18% in every case irrespective of the facts. This Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra) was of the view that the approach in Darsh Kumar was not correct. Following the decision of this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra) this appeal has to be allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the National Commission for passing appropriate orders. No costs. After the remand of the matter, the appeal was listed for hearing on 30.09.2010 and the matter was adjourned to 5.10.2010 on the request of learned counsel for both the sides. However, on 5.10.2010, none of the parties appeared and since the Coram at Bench was not complete, the matter was adjourned for today for final hearing. Today, nobody appears from the either of the parties. -5- However, we have considered the grounds set up in the memorandum of appeal as also the submissions which were partly made by the counsel for the parties on 30.09.2010. The appeal raises only short issue in regard to the extent/quantum of interest which the complainant can legitimately claim in the facts and circumstances of the case viz. there being delay in handing over the possession of the agreed flat to the complainant despite receipt of the entire consideration of Rs.1,44,000. For the delay in delivery of possession of the flat in question, the State Commission has found the appellant guilty of deficiency in service and directed the appellant-Housing Board to pay interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 1.1.1990 to 21.4.1994 for the period of delay in handing over the possession. This Commission relying upon the decision of this case in revision petition No. 1197 of 1998 titled as aryana Urban Development Authority vs. Darsh Kumarhad upheld the said finding and order of the State Commission in the present case. When it was pointed out before the Supreme Court that the case ought to have been decided in terms of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh, 2004(5) SCC 65, the -6- Supreme Court held that reliance of this Commission on the decision of aryana Urban Development Authority vs. Darsh Kumarwas not tenable and the matter ought to be decided in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (supra). Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and that there is no denial of the factual position that the possession of the flat in question viz. the appellant/board had agreed to hand over according to the terms also as on 1.1.1990, was not delivered and was in fact delivered on 22.4.1994. Therefore, the question is as to what compensation by way of interest the complainant should be entitled. Going by the guidelines laid-down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh(supra), we are of the view that the complainant was not entitled to interest more than 12% per annum for the period of delay. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be modified accordingly. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the finding of the State Commission in regard to the deficiency in -7- service on the part of the appellant-Board, we modify the direction in regard to payment of interest in the manner that the appellant-Board shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from 1.1.1990 to 21.4.1994. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.

Later on, Shri Ravi Bakshi, learned counsel for the respondent has appeared and he has been apprised about the order.