The court highlighted the need to consider the specific facts of each case and the impact of external factors such as stay orders on the development progress. It emphasized that compensation must be determined based on the individual circumstances and that the Consumer Protection Act enables redress for injustice suffered by the consumer.

Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, President—In these Revision Petitions respondent was allotted House No. H.489 in Anukampa HIG Self Financing Scheme at Ghaziabad by the petitioner. As the possession of the house was not handed over, Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ghaziabad, by filing Case No. 448 of 1994. The District Forum by its order dated 26.2.1998 directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the developed house and to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 17.12.1993 till the date of delivery of possession, on the deposit made by the Complainant. And, in case of non-compliance of the order, penal interest at 21%. Petitioner was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

2. Petitioner preferred an appeal No. 802/SC/1998 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P.

3. Complainant has also preferred an appeal No. 943/SC/1998 contending that Complainant was entitled to grant of interest from May, 1991 till December, 1993 on the deposited amount and from 1994 onwards till the delivery of the possession.

4. By Judgment and Order dated 22.9.1999, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the Complainant and directed that the petitioner shall pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. in the form of loss from 24th April, 1991 to 16th February, 1993, in addition to the claim decreed by the District Forum, with a further cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

5. In view of the aforesaid order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

6. Against that order petitioner has filed these Revision Petitions. The said Revision Petitions were decided by this Commission on 15th March, 2002. That order was set aside by the Supreme Court by order dated 7.2.2002, holding that by order 22nd September, 1999 the State Commission held that interest at the rate of 18% was payable from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993, but, the order passed by the National Commission proceeded on the basis that the State Commission has not directed payment of any interest for the said period and this was error apparent on the face of the order. Hence, the matters were remitted to this Commission for deciding them on merits.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, GDA submitted before us that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the GDA and grant of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the facts of the case is unjustifiable and unreasonable. For this purpose, he referred to the fact that the Complainant paid the last instalment on 23rd March, 1991, and has paid in all Rs. 1,78,085/-. It is contended that (i) the development of Anukampa Scheme was adversely affected from 24th April, 1991 to 16th December, 1993 due to stay order granted by the Allahabad High Court; (ii) the possession of the house in question could not be handed over immediately after vacation of the stay on 16th December, 1993, because development work like laying sewerage lines, construction of roads, providing other infrastructural facilities in the huge area of Govindpuram took some time. Thereafter, the GDA offered possession of the house, and the Complainant, in fact, took possession on 22nd May, 1996.

8. Further, it has been pointed out that in a similar case, this Commission held that no interest or damages for delayed possession is to be paid to an allottee of Govindpuram Scheme when possession was offered in the year 1996. That decision was upheld by the Apex Court in G.D.A. v. Sanchar Vihar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad, II (1996) CPJ 15 (SC)=(1996) 9 SCC 314, wherein the Court observed that the National Commission has made no mistake in refusing interest or damages for delayed possession of the plots to the members of the Complainant. The Court held that the lands in question were subject matter of land acquisition proceedings and because of the interim orders obtained by the land owners/claimants the Authority was unable to finalise the acquisition proceedings and obtained possession thereof.

9. It has als