APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. D.P. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the Respondent NEMO / Exparte PRONOUNCED ON : 20th MAY 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 12.07.2010, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 3658/2009, ri P. Y. Rajendra Kumar versus M/s Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society Ltd.,vide which, while partly allowing the appeal against the order dated 14.10.2009 in consumer complaint no. 2007/2009, passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seshadripuram, allowing the said complaint, was modified. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum, saying that he was a member of the respondent/OP house building cooperative society and he applied for allotment of a site at Gangenahally. The respondent/OP issued a provisional letter for allotment of a site measuring 40 60on 31.12.1984 and indicated the provisional price for the same as ` 38,000/-. It has been stated in the complaint that later on, various other amounts were demanded from the complainant towards enhancement of price and in total, the petitioner/complainant paid a sum of ` 87,000/- to the Society for allotment of the said site. It has been alleged in the complaint that despite accepting full consideration for the site, the Society failed to deliver the said plot to the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint dated 12.08.2009, seeking directions to the respondent/OP to allot and give possession of the site measuring 40x 60 or in the alternative, to pay compensation of ` 19,87,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment for deficiency in service and also to pay ` 12,000/- as litigation expenses. The complainant stated that the amount of `_19.87 lakh consisted of the following:- i) Amount paid to the Opposite Party Rs. 87,000/- ii) Compensation amount Rs. 15,00,000/- iii) Mental agony Rs. 2,00,000/- iv) Interest Rs. 2,00,000/- --------------------- Total Rs. 19,87,000/- --------------------- 3. The District Forum vide their order dated 14.10.2009, directed the OP to allot site measuring 40 60and also directed that if the OP failed to allot such site, they should return the amount of `_87,000/- with interest @10% p.a. and `_1000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. An appeal filed against this order before the State Commission was decided by them vide impugned order dated 12.07.2010 by which, it was ordered that the said allotment be made, or in the alternative, a refund of ` 87,000/- be made with interest @18% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till realisation. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the District Forum indicates that the OP House Building Cooperative Society did not put an appearance before the District Forum despite service of notice. They also did not appear before the State Commission despite notice. During hearings before this Commission as well, the Society did put in appearance through counsel, but later on, they remained absent. A fresh notice was sent to the respondent/OP for appearance, in response to which an Advocate again appeared, but did not file his vakaltnama. The petition was ordered to be admitted on 29.08.2013 and notice was again issued to the respondents for final hearing. Despite the service of the notice, the respondent did not put an appearance on the date of hearing, i.e., 8.01.2014. The case was adjourned to 29.04.2014, when the final hearing was made. 5. It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Society had failed to give possession of the site in question, although he had deposited the entire amount as per the demand made by the Society from time to time. The society had not indicated any reason for not giving the said site to the petitioner and hence, they were liable to pay compensation as demanded in the complaint, i.e., a sum of ` 19.87 lakh alongwith interest @18% p.a. 6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The facts of the case make it very clear that the respondent/OP have received a sum of ` 87,000/- from the petitioner for the allotment of site measuring 2400 sq. ft., but they have not been able to give the possession of the same to him. The District Forum and the State Commission have rightly observed that the Society is liable to pay compensation for the deficiency in service towards the petitioner. The State Commission directed that the entire deposited amount of ` 87,000/- should be paid back to the petitioner with interest @18% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till realisation. However, the petitioner/complainant has demanded a compensation of `_19.87 lakh, which includes compensation amount of ` 15 lakh and ` 2 lakh for mental agony and ` 2 lakh for interests. It is made out, however, that the petitioner/complainant has not been able to provide any reasonable explanation for awarding compensation to the tune of `_19.87 lakh. The matter regarding grant of compensation in such cases has been duly considered in various judgements passed by the Honle Supreme Court and this Commission. The general principles for granting such compensation have been enunciated by the Honle Supreme Court in the case, as reported in Bangalore Development Authority vs. Syndicate Bank, as reported in (2007) 6 SCC 711. The essence of the judgment given in this case and other allied cases says that interest is to be allowed depending upon the facts and circumstances, governing a particular case. 7. In the present case, the State Commission has already allowed payment of interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited by the petitioner with it. We do not find any infirmity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in this order which may require interference at the revisional stage. The present revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.