The complainant was not liable to pay interest on the escalated cost of the house, and the authority was directed to complete the formalities for possession and registration.

Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.5.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 160/1994.

2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a single storey house in Tikait-Rai-Talab Scheme of the Lucknow Development Authority. The complainant received an allotment letter dated 24.4.1989 by which the complainant was allotted house No. 613/11. He was to deposit the rest of the amount of Rs. 79,500/- in quarterly instalments. The instalments were of Rs. 13,250/-. In all a sum of Rs. 84,500/- had been deposited by the complainant. The complainant has not been given possession of the house and the registration of sale deed has also not been done so far. The complainant met the officials several times and met representatives of the Lucknow Development Authority for possession of house No. 613/11 but no heed was paid. Ultimately the complainant went to the premises and found that unauthorised possession has been taken by some other persons and they are living in that house. The complainant informed this fact to the Lucknow Development Authority. Thereafter by letter dated 19.3.1993 the Lucknow Development Authority further demanded an additional sum of Rs. 21,500/- which was intimated as escalated price. A sum of Rs. 3574.40 was also demanded as interest at the rate of 21% per annum. According to the complainant on similar houses the allottees have been given possession about 1½ years back. The complainant has been denied the possession. The complainant has prayed that possession of the house be handed over to him and registration of sale deed be done. He has also claimed damages and amount of rent which he had to pay on account of non-delivery of possession. In all the complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs. 1,43,500/- as damages and interest paid to the Lucknow Development Authority.

3. The opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority, in the written reply has alleged that after the final calculation a sum of Rs. 21,500/- was found due which was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 19.3.1993. The complainant has not deposited this amount and the possession can be given to him on deposit of this amount. The costing of the house was done after completion of the house. Therefore, it was not done in the year 1990 but was done in the year 1993.

4. The parties led evidence before the learned District Forum, who after perusing the same and hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency on behalf of the complainant. Hence it directed the complainant to deposit the entire amount demanded by the Lucknow Development Authority and to complete the formalities within a period of 15 days and thereafter the possession can be delivered to the complainant and the registration shall also be done. If the opposite party delays the possession and registration, then it will have to pay interest on the cost of the house at the rate of 20% per annum.

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

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainants. Written arguments have been filed by the respondent/opposite party.

7. According to the allegations of the complainant, the house was completed in the year 1989 and there was no justification for the Lucknow Development Authority to have informed the complainant about the escalation of the cost in the year 1993. It has not come specifically either in the evidence of the complainant or in the evidence of the Lucknow Development Authority as to when this house was completed. It is only during the course of arguments it was informed that the house was completed in the year 1989. In the complaint it has also been alleged by the complainant that the complainant visited the site and found that certain persons are l