ORDER: Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral):- Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these cases, as such they were taken up together for hearing as was prayed for jointly by learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admitted petition regarding which parties were not at variance in these appeals needs to be briefly noted. Appellant Corporation advertised in March 2001 that it was going to construct a car parking-cum-commercial complex hear the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. This commercial complex was to be given on lease hold basis having godowns in the basement alongwith toilet, lift and corridor. The first floor was to have office/commercial space with toilet, lift and corridor and second floor was to have office cabins, toilet, lift and corridor and third floor was to have Municipal corporation Guest House and forth to sixth floors were to be the car parking, two office rooms, toilet and lift and seventh floor was to have Advocate(s) modern shopping complex as per advertisement. Opening date of the scheme was 5.3.2001 and was to close on 31.3.2001. Appellant further held out that project was likely to be completed on 31.5.2001. This period was extended later on to 30.9.2001. 3. It is further not in dispute that in response to this advertisement respondents in all these cases submitted their applications for allotment of chambers and as per requirement of the appellant submitted requisite applications alongwith the required amount. Record of the case shows that the building was not completed either on the original date i.e. 31.5.2001 or the extended date i.e. 30.9.2001. This fact was even not disputed on behalf of the appellant. In some cases the area was increased and extra amount was claimed. Possession was offered to the respondents much later as per own showing of the appellant. Amount stands deposited by all the respondents in these appeals with the appellant. Possession has not been taken over by any of the respondents is another admitted fact . Four separate complaints were filed by them claiming for the refund of the amount deposited with interest damages as well as costs. Forum below in every cases has ordered the refund of the amount with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of deposit with the appellant till actual payment is made. The litigation cost is quantified Rs. 1500/- and Rs. Forum below in every cases has ordered the refund of the amount with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of deposit with the appellant till actual payment is made. The litigation cost is quantified Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 5,000/- was burdened with damages in each case. 4. After filing of the complaints when appellant was put to notice reason for delay given was that firstly there were incessant rain when construction was undertaken as a result of which the road abutting the proposed construction gave way, therefore, immediate remedial by way of constructing retaining wall were taken. Thereafter the spot was got inspected from geotechnical expert by the appellant. Provision of lift to all the respondents was denied, as it was to be a freight lift and modern shopping complex could not be constructed due to technical reasons. Construction work had already been completed and allotment letters to take over the chambers by the respondents in these cases were issued but none of them has come forward to take possession till date. There was no deficiency of service, dismissal of complaints on this ground was prayed for by Mr. Arora at the time of hearing. He on instructions received from his client stated at the bar, that the common facilities like stairs and corridors have been provided Toilets are locked without any provision and the common pentry has been converted into office and also stands allotted to a Chartered Accountant. It was also not disputed by him that maintenance of these common service areas was the sole responsibility of his client. But according to Mr. Arora service charges were payable by the occupants. Even at the time of final hearing it was not disputed that none of these service are there and modern shopping complex at the top floor had to be abandoned because of technical advise and at present it is being used as a parking space. 5. Regarding lift it was forcefully urged by him that it was not meant for passengers use but was to be only a freight lift. Since construction of godown is still under consideration as such no benefit can be derived by the respondents on account of non provision of the lift. 6. Sum and substance of the submission of Mr. 5. Regarding lift it was forcefully urged by him that it was not meant for passengers use but was to be only a freight lift. Since construction of godown is still under consideration as such no benefit can be derived by the respondents on account of non provision of the lift. 6. Sum and substance of the submission of Mr. Arora was that lift was net meant for passengers use and delay in construction was due to heavy rains and the other technical hitches and after completion of construction when possession was offered to all the respondents in these appeals, they declined therefore, none of them is entitled to any relief. Increased/decrease in area was due to sloppy spot where the construction was carried out therefore no exception can be taken to it. Resultantly according to Mr. Arora all these appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned order set aside thus all complaints was liable to be dismissed. In the alternative without conceding, he submitted that even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that respondents are entitled to any relief rate of interest allowed was not only excessive, but was also not in consonance with the mandate of the National Commission as well as the Honble Supreme Court thus he prayed for reducing it...... 7.All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Verma learned counsel for the respondent as according to him his clients had opted for the chambers and had made full payment within the time frame with the expectation that possession was to be delivered to them by 30.9.2001. No effort was made in deliver the possession till the year 2003. Regarding lift he submitted that even if it was a weight lift still for taking up and down office furniture, books and other office equipments by his clients the appellant was duty bound to have provided the same before offering possession. Further according to Mr. Verma without providing any facility i.e. lighting putting the toilets to use as well as making provision for water common pentry, the offer of giving possession is nothing but a rush practiced by the Corporation to overcome its lapses. He also submitted that the appellant had not offered the possession of the premises in question for which it had received the amount from his clients complete in all respects. He also submitted that the appellant had not offered the possession of the premises in question for which it had received the amount from his clients complete in all respects. As the facilities of water, common public convenience i.e. toilet etc. and common pentry held out on which basis each one of the respondent had agreed to take the chamber in question. At the holding out by the appellant respondents changed their possession to their j disadvantage by making full payment without being provided premises with facilities thus the appellant is estopped from saying that the common pentry area t stands transferred to a Chartered Accountant. 8. No explanation was given as to why lights in the stairs and in the other common areas were not provided and why the toilets were not opened and made usable. Faced with the situation Mr. Arora submitted that charges we to be borne by the respondents. Suffice it to say in this behalf that is not the case of appellant Corporation that it provided these services and any of the respondents refused to pay such charges. As already noted even on the date of hearing it was stated on behalf of the appellant Corporation that no such facilities are being provided even to these layers who have occupied the chambers pursuant to the allotment made to them. 9. We are alive to the situation that in hilly areas particularly in slopes during the course of construction situation may warrant changes in the original plan /designs site area and pattern of construction. If that was the factual position that was expected- of the appellant was to have informed the respondents other similarly situate persons that due to change in circumstances because of unforeseen situation area of chambers is likely to be therefore extra/less cost is going to be the consequence of such changes . In case any one of the allotties has any objections to such change he can withdraw the deposited amount. There is no such plea in reply to the complaint. As already noted per Mr. Arora the top floor could not be constructed as a modern shopping complex because of technical advise. Again if that was the factual position nothing prevented the appellant in have produced if on record these cases. There is no such plea in reply to the complaint. As already noted per Mr. Arora the top floor could not be constructed as a modern shopping complex because of technical advise. Again if that was the factual position nothing prevented the appellant in have produced if on record these cases. So much so that no attempt was made in even produce it during the course of the hearing that the modern shopping complex had to be abandoned on the technical advise. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that three stories are being used for parking purpose and one each have been sold to H.P. State Electricity Board and Punjab, National Bank. After 5, Oclock with the closure of offices and throughout the day also the entire.....of these floor to thrown down below 10. We have no hesitation in observing that corporation utilized the money of the respondents in these appeals without ...... them of any problems being faced by them. Why could not be explained and nothing was brought in our notice even at the time of hearing. In these circumstances we find that no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the Forum below so far refund of the amount deposited by each one of the respondents. 11. Now coming to the question of liability of payment of interest. Forum below has allowed 12% per annum w.e.f. deposit of the amount (s) with the appellant Corporation. So far date is concerned the same is upheld. However keeping in view the present trend of grant of interest being ordinarily and generally allowed @ 9% per annum to this limited extent the impugned order is modified. Litigation cost and damages as ordered by the Forum below are upheld. Appellant is also liable for payment of costs in all these appeals to each one of the respondents in the peculiar facts in these cases. 12. No other point was urged. 13.In view of the aforesaid discussion while party allowing these appeals impugned order is modified to the limited extent by reducing the interest from 12% to 9% per annum rest of the order of the Forum below in each case is upheld at the same time appellant is also burdened with cost of Rs. 5000/- in each appeal. 13.In view of the aforesaid discussion while party allowing these appeals impugned order is modified to the limited extent by reducing the interest from 12% to 9% per annum rest of the order of the Forum below in each case is upheld at the same time appellant is also burdened with cost of Rs. 5000/- in each appeal. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith and the office will make available copy of this order to the parties free of costs under rules. Office shall place an authenticated copy of this order on the files of Appeal No. 122, 123 and 125 of 2005.