ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an appeal against the order dated 25.5.1999 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for refund of the deposit made by the complainant along with interest @ 15%. The appellant has further been directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had applied for allotment of a house in Roorkee. He deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 12.2.1988. Till 1996 the scheme was not carved out. In 1996 there was a publication that a person who is interested in refund should apply by 30.11.1996. The complainant applied on 14.11.1996 for the refund of his amount but he has neither been allotted a house, nor any amount was refunded to him. Therefore, he filed the complaint. 3. The appellant filed written statement and admitted that the scheme could not be successful, therefore, the amount was to be refunded and the complainant was entitled to refund along with interest @ 6% as published in the brochure. 4. However, the complaint was filed on 27.2.1997 and it is on 10.6.1997 that a sum of Rs. 7,755/- has been deposited by the complainant, which has been received by the complainant. This deposit was made after the institution of the complaint and, therefore, definitely it cannot be said to be a discharge, otherwise the parties should have got the complaint dismissed then and there. 5. The scheme was carved out by the appellant. It was his duty to give a plot to the complainant or refund the amount. The only argument was that the appellant was bound to pay interest @ 6% only as published in the brochure. Our simple reply is that the appellant itself did not honour its brochure and its commitments, why it should expect its honour by the complainant who has deposited his hard earned money in the expectations that he will get a house. In a case like this interest is not awarded like a deposit in the Bank. In a case like this interest is also granted to compensate the complainant regarding the harassment, etc. which he has suffered. It is, therefore, that Consumer Foras grant higher rate of interest than ordinary civil deposits. In a case like this interest is not awarded like a deposit in the Bank. In a case like this interest is also granted to compensate the complainant regarding the harassment, etc. which he has suffered. It is, therefore, that Consumer Foras grant higher rate of interest than ordinary civil deposits. The sufferance, harassment, inconvenience to the complainant is also taken sight of while granting interest. At any rate the terms and conditions of the brochure could not be complied by the appellant, therefore, he cannot force the complainant to accept the said rate of interest. 6. Now the matter has been finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in III (2004) CPJ 18 (SC)=2004 (3) CPR 96 (SC), Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Shashi Kant Bhalla, that where possession of allotted plot was not delivered due to cancellation of scheme, allottee would be entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on refund of deposited amount. In this particular case interest has been allowed @ 15% not @ 18% with which we do not find any reason to interfere. 7. In the above ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court also the learned Forum has allowed compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. It appears that the National Commission has only allowed interest @ 18%. Nothing has been said regarding compensation but we are now supported by the rulings reported in II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC), Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India; III (2002) CPJ 124 (NC)=2003 (2) CPC page 1 (NC), Satelec Power Electronics v. HRDC and IV (2003) CPJ 90=2003 (6) CLD (SCDRC Delhi) page 201, Rajpal Mahana v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., that where interest has been given, that too on the higher side, compensation separately should not be granted. Therefore, the order of payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is to be quashed. As regards the cost of litigation, the learned Forum has rightly allowed the cost of Rs. 1,000/-, that order is not be interfered with. ORDER The appeal is hereby partly allowed and partly dismissed. The order of payment of compensation (Hindi matter omitted) of Rs. 5,000/- is hereby quashed. Rest part of the order passed by the learned Forum shall remain intact. The learned Forum has already passed order regarding the adjustment of the payments made to the complainant. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal partly allowed.