ORDER

1. THE RESPONDENTS APPLIED FOR ALLOTMENT OF FLATS UNDER THE FIFTH SELF-FINANCING SCHEME UNDER CATEGORY 2 AND CATEGORY 3. EVEN AFTER THEY MADE FULL PAYMENT TOWARDS THE COST OF THE FLATS AND ALSO AFTER COMPLETION OF THE FORMALITIES REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED BY THEM, THE APPELLANT DID NOT DELIVER POSSESSION OF THE FLATS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. THE RESPONDENTS APPROACHED THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM SEEKING DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THEM ON ACCOUNT OF INORDINATE DELAY CAUSED IN DELIVERY OF POSSESSION OF FLATS. THE DISTRICT FORUM, AFTER CONSIDERING THE RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, ALLOWED THE COMPLAINTS OF THE RESPONDENTS AND DIRECTED THE APPELLANT TO PAY INTEREST @ 18% ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY CAUSED BY IT IN DELIVERY OF POSSESSION AND A SUM OF RS 2000 WAS ALSO AWARDED AS COST TO EACH ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS. THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT FORUM. THE STATE COMMISSION, WHILE AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE DISTRICT FORUM, REDUCED THE RATE OF INTEREST TO 15% AND IN OTHER RESPECTS THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT FORUM WAS CONFIRMED. THE MATTER DID NOT REST AT THAT. THE APPELLANT FILED REVISION BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE COMMISSION. THE NATIONAL COMMISSION DID NOT FIND ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE COMMISSION AND UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE COMMISSION. THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FURTHER DIRECTED THE APPELLANT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT TOWARDS PAYMENT OF COSTS OF RS 2000 TO EACH ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS FROM ITS OFFICERS. HENCE THESE APPEALS.

2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER MADE, DIRECTING THE APPELLANT TO PAY INTEREST @ 15% IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED AND THE RATE OF INTEREST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE AMENDED CLAUSE 10 OF THE BROCHURE ISSUED UNDER THE SCHEME.

3. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS MADE SUBMISSIONS SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER.

4. THE ONLY CONTROVERSY RAISED BEFORE US IS REGARDING THE RATE OF INTEREST.

AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT FORUM AS WELL AS THE STATE COMMISSION THAT THE AWARD OF INTEREST @ 15% IS NOT INTEREST IN SUBSTANCE, BUT, IT IS TO COMPENSATE THE RESPONDENTS BY WAY OF AWARDING DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS IN TERMS OF MONEY AS WELL AS THE MENTAL AGONY AND OTHER SUFFERINGS THEY UNDERWENT. THIS POSITION IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT FORUM AS WELL AS BY THE STATE COMMISSION. THE STATE COMMISSION IN ITS ORDER, DEALING WITH THE AWARD OF DAMAGES BY WAY OF INTEREST, HAS STATED THUS:

"IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT IF AN ALLOTTEE IS NOT GIVEN POSSESSION OF THE FLAT, HE NOT ONLY SUFFERS MONETARY LOSS, BUT ALSO SUFFERS MENTAL PAIN AND HARASSMENT. THE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELAY, IS THEREFORE, A LIABLE TO REIMBURSE HIM FOR THE LOSS SUFFERED BY HIM AND PAY DAMAGES FOR MENTAL PAIN AND AGONY. THE DDA CANNOT AVOID ITS LIABILITY TO REIMBURSE THE ALLOTTEE FOR DELAY IN DELIVERY OF THE POSSESSION OF THE FLAT ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD PAID INTEREST TO THE ALLOTTEE IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 10 OF THE BROCHURE. THE COMPLAINANT, IS THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1-8-1988 TILL 14-6-1989 MINUS THE PERIOD OF ONE-AND-A-HALF B MONTHS. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL DAMAGES FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE POSSESSION OF THE FLAT. WE THINK THAT THE COMPLAINANT WILL BE AMPLY COMPENSATED IF INTEREST @ 15% P.A. ON THE TOTAL PRICE OF THE FLAT IS GIVEN TO HIM."

5. THE NATIONAL COMMISSION HAS ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE MENTAL AGONY AND HARASSMENT CAUSED TO THE ALLOTTEES. TAKING NOTE OF THE SAME, THE NATIONAL C COMMISSION HELD THAT THE ORDER OF THE STATE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES, WE DO NOT THINK IT PROPER TO EXERCISE OUR JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER.

6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS ARE L