B.K. Taimni, Member.—Appellant was the Complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Kanpur Development Authority (KDA). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was allotted a plot in Indira Nagar, Middle Income Group Scheme in Kanpur by the respondent KDA. In all the complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- each on 02.12.1972 and 22.02.1975). The possession of the plot was not given and correspondence followed. It appears sometime on 12.08.1998. The allotment was cancelled. Then there was correspondence and when no tangible result was forthcoming, a complaint was filed by the appellant before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service. The State Commission, after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint in following terms: 1. The complainant shall make an application alongwith certified copy of this order within one month from today before the K.D.A. for allotment of the alternative plot which the KDA shall allot within one month of receiving the application. 2. While allotting the plot, the KDA will specify the total area of the plot. The area of the originally allotted plot of the complainant shall be deducted should the presently allotted plot be of a larger area. 3. Rs. 10,000/- shall be adjusted towards the price payable by the complainant for the equivalent of the old area and present rate shall be applied for the excess area, if any, which shall also be paid by the complainant within one month of receiving the demand notice which shall be issued within another month of the issuance of the allotment letter. The complainant shall deposit the entire amount within another one month upon which the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the complainant by the opposite party in accordance with the procedure for it. 4. Having done so, the sale-deed shall be executed within another one month. 3. Not satisfied with this relief, this appeal has been filed before us for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- and difference between cost of construction. None was present on behalf of the respondent despite having noted today's date of hearing, hence proceeded ex parte. 4. We heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. We have very carefully gone through the material on record and also the reliefs granted. 10,00,000/- and difference between cost of construction. None was present on behalf of the respondent despite having noted today's date of hearing, hence proceeded ex parte. 4. We heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. We have very carefully gone through the material on record and also the reliefs granted. The requisite relief have already been granted to the appellant by way of charging the then prevailing price way back in 1973 of a plot which he is going to get. It is only for excess area, if at all from the area allotted originally that the appellant has been asked to pay at prevailing market price. In catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as recently as Feb., 2005, it has been held that if the possession is given at the old price then a person shall not be entitled to any compensation on account of the fact that the cost of plot would have escalated in the meanwhile, which would have happened in this case as well. Hence we are not inclined to pay any compensation or other reliefs sought, except that the appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 12% alongwith other reliefs granted by the State Commission on the deposited amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the date of deposits till the time of allotment of the plot, as directed by the State Commission. 5. Keeping in view the fact that this Commission had appointed Amicus to help the appellant to plead the case, no order as to costs.