ORDER B.K. Taimni, Member :- Both these Revision Petitions arise out of two separate order passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeals filed by the District Forum dismissing their complaints. 2. Two common points have been agitated from the beginning by the Complainants. Firstly, the-reason for cost-escalation in the flats allotted to them, must be explained to them and secondly the complainants need to be compensated for delay of one and a half year in handing over the possession. Both these points were considered by both the lower forums after the complaints and appeals filed by them, but were dismissed on the ground that firstly the Consumer Forums cannot go into the question of pricing of flats and secondly the delay of one and half year cannot be held to be unreasonable. It is in these conditions that these Revision Petitions have been filed before us. 3. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties. As far as first point is concerned that is as per law laid down by Honble Supreme Court that the consumer forums cannot go into the question of pricing. In the second part of the complaint, admitted position is that there was a delay in handing over the possession of the flats beyond two and a half years as stipulated in the terms of the advertisement. It is pertinent to note that even though no time frame for completion of flats was given in the allotment letter but para 8 of this letter clearly laid down that the respondents bind him self to the advertisement inviting applications. In the advertisement it is clearly mentioned that "the tentative schedule of completion is 2-1/2 years". The respondent cannot get away from the schedule albeit with some more period say three months or so, for completion of the houses extra period - over and above the given period cannot be stretched to more than a year. That will be very unreasonable. In our view the delay reflects a clear deficiency on the part of the respondent for which respondent need to compensate the petitioner/complaint. 4. Following our own principle in this regard as laid down in HUDA and others v. Darsh Kumar and others. That will be very unreasonable. In our view the delay reflects a clear deficiency on the part of the respondent for which respondent need to compensate the petitioner/complaint. 4. Following our own principle in this regard as laid down in HUDA and others v. Darsh Kumar and others. Respondent is directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for the deposited amount for a period of one year along with a cost of Rs.2,000/- in such case.