ORDER 1. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondent. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we propose to dispose of h this appeal with a short order. 4. The appellant floated a scheme "Indira Puram Priyadarshani Enclave Plot Scheme" in the year 1992. Pursuant to the said Scheme, the respondent applied for an allotment of 200 square metres of land in Scheme No. 634, a Code No. 703. The estimated cost of the plot mentioned in the brochure was fixed at Rs 2,64,000. The respondent paid the registration fee of Rs 24,620 on 24-2-1992 and, thereafter, paid Rs 2,57,090 in five instalments by 9-2-1993. Despite payment of the instalments, the possession could not be delivered to the respondent till 10-4-1996 when the amount was refunded to her, stated to be on her request. Considering these facts, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission awarded interest at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum, which order has been affirmed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the National Commission"). The order of the National Commission is impugned in this appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant Authority stated that the possession could not be delivered to the respondent because of the stay order granted by the Allahabad High Court, which was in operation from April 1991 to December 1993. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent also did not make the full premium payment and for that reason as well, the possession could not be delivered. 6. As already noticed, there is nobody representing the respondent to rebut this contention. If the non-delivery of the possession is for the reason of the interim order passed by the High Court and the developmental activities and construction work could not be carried out during the period the order of stay was in operation, it could not be said that there were laches or negligence on the part of the appellant Authority. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent has already been paid interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent has already been paid interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum. In the facts and circumstances of this case, as stated above, we are of the view that it would be just and equitable if the appellant is directed to pay interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum. It is stated that the interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum f has already been paid to the respondent. 7. In Ghaziabad Deveiopment Authority v. Balbir Singh1 this Court has held that any payment made shall not be refunded. Following the decision in Balbir Singh1, we order that the payment, which has already been made at the rate of twelve per cent per annum, shall not be refunded. We also make it clear that the claimant shall not be entitled to any further amount in excess of principal amount and interest already paid. 8. This order that we have passed in the facts of this case shall not be treated as a precedent. 9. The civil appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. 10. No costs.