JUDGMENT - S.S. CHADHA, MEMBER :---This revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 24-4-1996 passed by the Punjab State Commission at Chandigarh upholding the order dated 19-1-1996 passed by the District Forum, Ludhiana and directing the opposite parties to pay interest to the complainant on the sum of Rs. 6,000/- from the date of deposit till 31-1-1992 calculated at the rate of 10% per annum. 2.The facts lie in a narrow compass and may be noticed. The Government of Punjab, through its agencies, has been carrying on the welfare activity of planning and developing residential colonies in the various Urban Estates in the State of Punjab. From time to time the lands are acquired by the Government and after development, housing plots are made available to the public in accordance with the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 and the Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 made thereunder. On 25th March, 1990 the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Punjab advertised a Scheme offering free-hold residential plots in Sector 32-A Urban Estate, Ludhiana. The complainant in response to the said advertisement had applied for allotment of a plot measuring 300 sq. yards and had deposited a sum of Rs. 6,000/- on 20-4-1990. As the complainant was not successful in the draw of lots, he applied on 24-9-1993 for the refund of his deposit. The Complainant was refunded the amount of his earnest money on 18-1-1994 with 10% interest with effect from 1-2-1992 but no interest was paid for the earlier period from 20-4-1990 to 31-1-1992. The complainant made a representation to the opposite party but of no avail and ultimately filed the complaint, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3.On being noticed the opposite party filed its written version. It was pointed out that the complainant and other persons had applied for the allotment of residential plot in April, 1990 in Sector 32-A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana, that a price of Rs. 1,200/- per sq. 3.On being noticed the opposite party filed its written version. It was pointed out that the complainant and other persons had applied for the allotment of residential plot in April, 1990 in Sector 32-A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana, that a price of Rs. 1,200/- per sq. yard was fixed for all sizes of plots, that the draw of lots was scheduled to commence from 18th December, 1991 but was postponed as some of the applicants wanted the price fixed for the plots to be reviewed and brought down, that the Housing Board reconsidered the entire matter and decided not to reduce the price already fixed but some other terms and conditions were liberalised, that this decision had been conveyed to all the applicants during the month of January, 1992 and the applicants had been requested to give their option in the prescribed form, that some of the applicants had filed writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the price fixed by the Board, that all these writ petitions had been dismissed and the Board's case for charging Rs. 1,200/- per sq. yard had been upheld by the High Court and that since the complainant had not withdrawn his earnest money he was entitled to be considered for allotment of the plot in this Sector. The complainant and other applicants similarly situated were duly informed that draw of lots for allotment of plots would take place as per the schedule indicated. It was also pleaded that the Housing Board had further decided that with effect from February, 1992 all the applicants would be paid interest on their earnest money at the rate of 10% per annum till such time as the allotment of plot/ flat is offered or the amount is refunded. It is also pointed out that the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 25-3-1990 clearly stated that "no interest will be paid on earnest money". 4.The District Forum noticed the main objection of the opposite party that the complainant was not entitled to payment of interest on the earnest money as it was clearly stated in the brochure which was issued for inviting applications for the plot that no interest would be payable on the earnest money. 4.The District Forum noticed the main objection of the opposite party that the complainant was not entitled to payment of interest on the earnest money as it was clearly stated in the brochure which was issued for inviting applications for the plot that no interest would be payable on the earnest money. The District Forum relied on the decision in (HUDA of Karnal v. Mahabir Singh)1, (1994) II C.P.J. 67 in which case no interest was payable but this Commission held that notwithstanding such condition the persons depositing the amount of earnest money were entitled to payment of interest. As already noticed the opposite party was directed to pay interest to the complainant on the sum of Rs. 6,000/- from the date of deposit till 31st January, 1992 calculated at the rate of 10% per annum. The appeal by the Estate Officer was dismissed by the State Commission by the impugned order dated 24-4-1996. 5.We heard Mrs. Rachna Joshi Issar Counsel for the petitioner herein and have gone through the written submissions of the complainant who did not appear before this Commission. It is true that the advertisement of this scheme and the brochure mentioned that no interest would be paid on the earnest money. The applicants/complainants had deposited the earnest money along with the application knowing fully well that no interest was to be paid on the earnest money. The registration of applications with deposit of earnest money gave the right of participation in the draw of lots. The names of the registered applicants had to be included in the draw of lots to be held as the number of plots were limited and all those who had not got the plots had to be refunded the deposit made by them and under the scheme no interest was to be paid on the refund of the earnest money. The Punjab Housing Development Board no doubt render service as defined in section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint under section 12 of the Act is maintainable only if the service so rendered suffers from deficiency as defined in section 2(1)(g) of the Act. This question has been settled by the Supreme Court in (Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta)2, 1994(3) Bom.C.R. (Cons.) 15 (S.C.). The Consumer Fora under the Act are not dealing with the enforcement of the contractual obligations but cases of deficiency in service. This question has been settled by the Supreme Court in (Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta)2, 1994(3) Bom.C.R. (Cons.) 15 (S.C.). The Consumer Fora under the Act are not dealing with the enforcement of the contractual obligations but cases of deficiency in service. Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or otherwise in relation to any service. When there is deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board, then the complainant is entitled to be compensated for the loss or injury suffered due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the Housing Board. The quantum of compensation may be readily quantifiable in some cases and in others it may present some difficulty. Interest at varying rates have been adopted as the reasonable basis for awarding compensation for the loss or injury suffered. The Consumer Fora do not modify the terms of the contract between the parties that no interest is payable on the earnest money deposited but award compensation in the form of interest at varying rate for the deficiency in service if established on record. 6.There may be extreme cases where no draw of lots is held at all as in (Sudha Agarwal v. U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad)3, I (1994) C.P.J. 204. (First Appeal Nos. 353 and 569 of 1992, decided on 14-12-1993). The case came up before this Commission when no draw of lots at all was held under this scheme although more than 10 years had elapsed since registration of applicants and construction of not even a single house had then been commenced by the opposite party under this scheme. There was thus clear deficiency in service undertaken by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and this Commission directed the refund to the complainant the full amount of the deposit made together with interest at 15% per annum to be calculated from the respective dates on which the amounts were deposited till the date of actual payment besides the sum of Rs. 15,000/- by way of compensation for harassment and mental agony. 15,000/- by way of compensation for harassment and mental agony. 7.There may be some cases where the money was not refunded immediately to the applicants who were unsuccessful in the draw of lots or even within a reasonable period. The service undertaken by the Housing Board is that if an applicant is unsuccessful in the draw of lots, then the money would be refunded. If the money is not refunded immediately or within reasonable time, then there is deficiency in service and compensation for the loss or injury suffered by the complainant can be granted by the Consumer Fora. The State Commission referred to the decision in HUDA of Karnal v. Mahavir Singh (supra). This Commission was considering revision petition against order dated 11-5-1994 passed by the State Commission of Haryana at Chandigarh relying upon an order passed by the State Commission in (State Officer, HUDA v. Parmeshwari Devi)4, First Appeal No. 164/92. The State Commission in Parmeshwari Devi's case considered the question as to what would be the reasonable time within which HUDA could withhold the deposit without the liability of payment of interest thereof and obviously no inflexible mathematical time limit can be prescribed. The State Commission held that a period of six months from the date of commencement of the booking to the date of refund should amply meet the ends of justice and this of course was subject to the quantification that in a peculiar case the HUDA may show some patently valid reason for the further extension of the time limit prescribed therein. This Commission agreed with the observations of the State Commission that the HUDA is not entitled to withhold the deposits received without payment of any interest for an indefinite period of time and dismissed the revision petition as no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission was found. An another case arose before this Commission in R.P. No. 426/94, "Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Smt. Kailash Devi, Hissar." When this Commission found that the amount was refunded to the complainant within a period of 1-1/2 months from the draw of lots in which the complainant was unsuccessful but both the District Forum as well as the State Commission had awarded interest at the rate of 10% per annum. This Commission held that HUDA could not be branded as lacking in efficiency or promptitude in the matter of service, in the matter of refund of the amount within a period of 1-1/2 months from the date of draw of lots in which the complainant was unsuccessful. The Revision Petition was allowed and the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission were set aside. In each case therefore, it has to be found as a fact whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board/Authority in refunding the amount after the draw of lots. 8.A third category of cases is where the draw of lots has been delayed. If the draw of lots has been delayed on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the Housing Board, then there is no negligence. In Parmeshwari Devi's case referred to above the State Commission had observed that the HUDA may show some patently valid reason for further extension of time limit of six months and that case was relied upon in Mahabir Singh's case by the State Commission and the revision petition was dismissed by this Commission. In this case the Punjab Housing Development Board had brought facts on record that the draw of lots was scheduled to commence from 18th December, 1991, that the draw of lots was postponed as some of the applicants wanted that the price for the plots to be reviewed and brought down, that the decision of the Housing Board was challenged by some of the applicants in the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing writ petitions and that all those writ petitions had been dismissed and the Board's case charging Rs. 1,200/- per sq. yard had been upheld by the High Court. The delay in the draw of lots was because of the circumstances beyond the control of the Board. The Board, however, on its own decided that with effect from February, 1992 all the applicants would be paid interest on their earnest money at the rate of 10% per annum till such time the allotment of the plot is offered or the amount is refunded. The Board, however, on its own decided that with effect from February, 1992 all the applicants would be paid interest on their earnest money at the rate of 10% per annum till such time the allotment of the plot is offered or the amount is refunded. There was no jurisdiction in the District Forum and the State Commission to direct payment of interest when it was not found that there was any negligence on the part of the Board or any deficiency in service in the matter of draw of lots. The draw of lots was delayed because of the pendency of the writ petitions relating to price fixation. For the above reasons the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of the State Commission as well as the District Forum awarding interest from the date of deposit till 31st January, 1992 is set aside leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Revision petition allowed.