Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.2.1995 passed by District Consumer Forum, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 1005/1994. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted plot No. 2/57 in Vikrant Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow by opposite party. The complainant deposited the entire price of this plot by September, 1987. It is further alleged that inspite of the fact that entire amount has been deposited by the complainant the possession of the plot has not been delivered to him. The complainant prayed for refund of deposited amount along with interest and compensation for harassment.

2. The opposite party in its written version alleged that inspite of best efforts development work could not be completed hence possession of plot could not be delivered. This fact was intimated to the complainant so that he may get deposited amount refunded along with interest @ 9% p.a.

3. The parties led their evidence before the District Forum who after considering the facts of the case has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency on the part of L.D.A. and directed the opposite party to give possession of the plot to the complainant within 180 days and to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost.

4. Aggrieved against this judgment and order passed by District Forum the opposite parties have come in appeal before this Commission.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that possession of the plot No. 2/57 has been handed over to the complainant on 22.3.2001. Registration of the plot has also been done. According to the learned Counsel Rs. 1,34,354.40 has been paid to the complainant on account of interest. According to the learned Counsel for opposite party/respondent a sum of Rs. 44,183.60 is due against the appellant. Counsel for the appellant states that appellant is not in a position to verify this amount. We are not concerned with it. This matter has to be decided by Executing Court.

6. Thus keeping the facts of the case, in view, as indicated today we find that only dispute remains about the rate of interest.

7. 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.

8. 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 Supreme Court has allowed interest at the rat