ORDER Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President (Oral):- When this case was taken up today, Mr. Rathore, learned Counsel for the opposite party stated at the bar that respondent has ceased to exist and all its assets and liabilities including pending litigation now vests with Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority having its Head Office at Nigam Vihar, Shimla-2 through its CEO-cum-Secretary, with the coming into force of Himachal Pradesh Housing Urban Development Authority Act, 2004. In view of this statement, opposite party is ordered to be substituted by H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority through its CEO-cum-Secretary, Nigam Vihar, Shimla-2, Office will carry out necessary correction in the record of this case. 2. Facts as they emerge from the record of this case are that this Commission in O.C. No. 3 of 2001 on 28.5.2002 had accepted the complaint to the limited extent of awarding 18% interest on the amount of Rs. 68,453/- from the date of payment of last instalment i.e. 24.8.1992 till realization. Other prayer for relief as regards damages and compensation was rejected. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- was allowed as litigation cost. 3. Both the parties felt aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of this Commission 28.5.2002. Opposite party filed First Appeal No. 264 of 2002 whereas complainant filed First Appeal No. 227 of 2002 before the National Commission. While issuing notice to the complainant in the appeal filed by the opposite party. National Commission on 20.8.2002 ordered payment of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant to defray his expenses in defending the case. Finally vide its judgment dated 21.2.2003, appeal of the opposite party was dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Opposite party took up this matter to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7590/2004. While disposing of the appeal, it was directed that rate of interest shall be 12% and not 18%. Special Leave Petition filed by the complainant before the Supreme Court, was dismissed in limine. 4. In the aforesaid background, complainant has filed the present execution for implementation of the order. Before dealing with his submissions, facts regarding payment having been made by the opposite party to the complainant on different dates need to be noted. These are as mentioned below. 5. Out of Rs. 68,453/- Rs. 64,800/- were admittedly received by the complainant on 8.12.1997. Thus, a balance of Rs. Before dealing with his submissions, facts regarding payment having been made by the opposite party to the complainant on different dates need to be noted. These are as mentioned below. 5. Out of Rs. 68,453/- Rs. 64,800/- were admittedly received by the complainant on 8.12.1997. Thus, a balance of Rs. 3,653/- was left due and outstanding payable by the opposite party to the complainant in terms of the order of this Commission dated 28.5.2002 which has been upheld right upto the Supreme Court. In addition to this amount, another sum of Rs. 46,601/- has also been received by the complainant on 18.1.2005 towards interest. 6. Complainant now urges that he is entitled to simple interest on the sum of Rs. 68,453/- with effect from 24.8.1992 till realization. Amount was finally realised on 18.1.2005 by him. With a view to advance his case, complainant, further urged that realization would mean when last payment is received by him and this Commission while ordering the payment of interest till realization was alive of the fact that sum of Rs. 64,800/- was already received by him on 8.12.1997. This was the case set up by the opposite party in its pleadings during the course of the proceedings of this original complaint. 7. He also demanded expenses defrayed by him in attending proceedings during the course of execution proceedings initiated by him. Complainant however fairly stated that when he attended hearings in execution proceedings before this Commission earlier, matter was either pending before the National Commission or before the Supreme Court. 8. Stand of the complainant has been controverted by Mr. Rathore, learned Counsel for the opposite party. His submission was pure and simple, that so far his client is concerned, amount stands already paid and nothing is due and outstanding so far satisfaction of the award of this Commission dated 28.5.2002 is concerned. He further stated that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was also subsequently remitted to the complainant by his client, receipt whereof is also admitted by the former. 9. After having considered respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties, as well as for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, we feel that the complainant is not entitled to interest save and except in the manner as propounded hereinafter. 2,000/- was also subsequently remitted to the complainant by his client, receipt whereof is also admitted by the former. 9. After having considered respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties, as well as for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, we feel that the complainant is not entitled to interest save and except in the manner as propounded hereinafter. This in our considered view is in consonance with the orders of this Commission which has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court with modification of reducing the rate of interest from 18% to 12% only. Complainant brought to our notice that a grievance was made by him in his Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court to allow the interest by compounding it that too till the amount was finally recovered by him. But his petition was dismissed in limine. When this plea was raised it presupposes that interest allowed was in fact simple, otherwise there was no need to have prayed for a direction to allow interest by compounding the same. 10. Now, the next question that arises is, as to what is the relevant date for calculating the interest. From the order of this Commission as well as of the National Commission and also from order in the appeal of the opposite party before the Supreme Court, on a true interpretation of judgment, we are satisfied that the interest will only be payable till the amount was unpaid. If the contention of the appellant is upheld it will tantamount to his undue enrichment. Thus was are satisfied that interest granted on the sum of Rs. 68453/- was not till 18.1.2005 which according to the complainant is the date when balance amount was released to him by the opposite party. Nothing prevented the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act as well as the Supreme Court to have specifically said so, admittedly at the cost of repetition we may observe that the order is silent on this aspect. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complainant is held entitled to interest on the sum of Rs. 68,453/- @ 12% simple from 24.8.1992 to 8.12.1997. Interest on this amount of Rs. 68,453/- comes to Rs. 43,492/50p. On the remaining sum of Rs. 3653/- interest @ 12% simple from 9.12.1997 to 18.1.2005 comes to Rs. 3,118/-. Thus, total interest payable, works out to Rs. 46,610/-50P. 68,453/- @ 12% simple from 24.8.1992 to 8.12.1997. Interest on this amount of Rs. 68,453/- comes to Rs. 43,492/50p. On the remaining sum of Rs. 3653/- interest @ 12% simple from 9.12.1997 to 18.1.2005 comes to Rs. 3,118/-. Thus, total interest payable, works out to Rs. 46,610/-50P. In addition to this, complainant is also entitled to total sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards costs as ordered by this Commission as well as the National Commission. Out of it, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been admittedly received by the complainant. Consequently now a sum of Rs. 10.009/50P is the amount now due and outstanding payable by the opposite party to the complainant. Mr. Rathore, learned Counsel for the opposite party on instructions received from CEO-cum-Secretary of the respondent as well as from Mr. A.K. Kalta, its Law Officer of the opposite party-stated at the Bar that amount will be given either in cash or by a bank draft before closing of office today. We accept this statement of the learned Counsel who is directed to file affidavit regarding the amount having been paid alongwith proof of payment within a week from today. Execution stands fully satisfied, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. -