The legal point established is that the terms of the brochure issued by the Development Authority are relevant in determining the applicable interest rate, and the court upheld the award of interest at 18% per annum based on the legal framework provided by the Contract Act, Specific Relief Act, and Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President— This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.5.1994 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 957/ 1993.

2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a plot in Govindpuram Housing Scheme and deposited the reservation amount. On the basis of this application, a plot was reserved for the complainant and the complainant in compliance of the payment of schedule deposited the entire amount with the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The complainant requested several times the Ghaziabad Development Authority for possession of the plot but nothing has been done by the Ghaziabad Development Authority and hence the complainant prayed for refund of the amount deposited along with 18% per annum interest.

3. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that due to certain unavoidable circumstances the possession of the plot could not be delivered. If the complainant wants to get the refund of the amount, then the same can be done with 5% per annum interest as per the rules.

4. The learned District Forum after considering the case of the parties directed for refund of the amount deposited by the complainant along with 18% per annum interest as also Rs. 500/- as cost and Rs. 1,000/- per month from 1.7.1994 as compensation.

5. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, Ghaziabad Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.

6. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that due to certain unavoidable circumstances the plot could not be allotted to the complainant. The appellant has not disclosed what are the unavoidable circumstances due to which the plot could not be delivered and possession could not be handed over to the complainant. Unless the reasons are disclosed and the Commission comes to a finding that the reason was really unavoidable then the complainant has to be refunded the amount along with 18% per annum interest. The deficiency is, therefore, on the part of the Ghaziabad Development Authority and it must refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant along with interest.

8. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that interest at the rate of 6% per annum should only be awarded while the learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that interest at the rate of 18% per annum be awarded. Learned Counsel for the complainant/ respondent has placed reliance on the case of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah & Ors. v. Lata Construction Company & Ors., I (1996) CPJ 81 (NC), decided by the National Commission. In that case the possession was not delivered within the time given in the agreement. When the house was not delivered in time the National Commission found that there was a deficiency in service on behalf of M/s. Lata Construction Company and awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Similarly the National Commission in the case of George Thomas & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC), has held that the possession was not given to the allottee as per the scheme. The option was given by the Ghaziabad Development Authority to the complainant for taking another plot but the complainant did not agree to this proposition. On the basis of these facts, the National Commission held that there was deficiency in service on behalf of the Ghaziabad Development Authority and allowed interest at the rate of 18% per annum because Ghaziabad Development Authority recovers interest at the rate of 18% per annum on defaults on the amounts payable to it. Thus this case law also shows that the interest at the rate of 18% per annum is payable by the Development Authorities.

9. The learned Counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance on the case of Surendra Kaur v. Government of Punjab & Ors., (1998) 9 Supreme Court Cases 592. The Hon’ble Su