JUDGMENT : N.K.Jain, J.: - Thisappeal by opposite party-the M.P. Housing Board, arises from the order dated30-7-2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore in C.C. No. 362/2004 directing theappellant -Board to execute lease/sale deed of the allotted house in favour of respondent- allottee andalso pay to him interest @ 12% p.a. on his deposits, i.e., Rs .1 ,94,887 /- from 1-6-1995 to 23-5-2003. Cost Rs . 1000/- has also been awarded. 2.For the purpose of this appeal it is no more in dispute thatrespondent-complainant was allotted a house No. M-82 GS situated at Nanda Nagar , Indore , by appellant-Board on onetime full payment basis, vide allotment letter dated 6-5-1994 . The estimated cost of the house wasfixed at Rs . 1 ,94,312 /- +advance lease rent Rs . 575/-, total Rs . 1,94,887/-. The respondent allottee who had already deposited a sum of Rs . 90,000/- (byway of registration fee etc.) till that date was required to pay the balanceamount of Rs . 1,04,887/- within 30 days and get thelease deed executed before taking possession of the house. It was however,clearly stated in the said allotment order dated 6-5-1994 that the costindicated in the order is provisional and that the respondent allottee will have to pay the price as may be fixed finallyin due course. The respondent deposited the said balance amount of Rs . 1 ,04,887 /-with theappellant-Board through an account payee cheque on 19-4-1995 , i.e., with a delay ofabout 10 months. The possession of the house was delivered to the respondent on 23-5-2003 . It appears thatin the meantime, some additional land was also allotted to the respondent andthe final cost of the house including the said additional land was fixed at Rs . 2,71, 502/- and then reduced to Rs .2,51,031/- vide letter dated 21-4-2004. After giving adjustment of the amountalready deposited by the respondent, he was required to pay the balance amountof Rs . 46,169/- which he deposited the same day,i.e., 21-4-2004. However, the lease/sale deed of the property still remainedunexecuted. 3.The main grievance of the respondent before the District Forum was that despitehis depositing the entire cost of the house, the possession of the house wasnot delivered to him for long 8 years. The demand for Rs .46,169/- made vide letter dated 21-4-2004 was wholly unjustified still he deposited the said amount under protest. 3.The main grievance of the respondent before the District Forum was that despitehis depositing the entire cost of the house, the possession of the house wasnot delivered to him for long 8 years. The demand for Rs .46,169/- made vide letter dated 21-4-2004 was wholly unjustified still he deposited the said amount under protest. It wasfurther contended that the appellant-Board has been using the said house for it's office purpose whereas he had to live in a rented houseand pay rent for the same. He thus, claimed interest on his deposit for theentire period of delay, rent at the rate of Rs . 500/-per month and general damages Rs.1,00,000/-. 4.The appellant-Board contested the respondent's claim and it was submitted that therespondent allottee himself did not come forward toget the lease and other documents executed and take possession of the house. Itwas further contended that on his request some additional land appertaining tothe house was allotted to him at the same rate charged for the rest of theland. It was thus, contended that the respondent-complainant was not entitledto any compensation. 5.Both parties adduced evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. TheForum below allowed the complaint and passed order for payment of interest asaforesaid on the finding that there was unjustified delay of 8 years indelivering possession of the house to the respondent. As regards the allotmentof additional land it was held that it was altogether a separate issue and inno way justified the said long delay in delivery of possession of the house tothe respondent. 6.We have heard Shri Ravindra Tiwari , learned Counsel for appellant and Shri Rakesh Jain, learned Counselfor respondent. We have also gone through the evidentiary material on record. 7. As already stated, possession of the house wasdelivered to the respondent on 23-5-2003 whereas he had deposited the entire amount of cost of the house as demanded byappellant-Board, on 19-4-2005 .True, that the cost indicated in the allotment letter dated 6-5-1994 was provisional no final.But, it was for the appellant-Board to finalize the cost and demand the balanceamount if any, from the respondent- allottee . However,no such action seems to have been taken nor any demand was ever made by theappellant until on 21-4-2004 when for the first time an additional demand of Rs . 46,169/- was made from the respondent fixing the finalcost of the house and the said additional land at Rs .2,51,031/-. However,no such action seems to have been taken nor any demand was ever made by theappellant until on 21-4-2004 when for the first time an additional demand of Rs . 46,169/- was made from the respondent fixing the finalcost of the house and the said additional land at Rs .2,51,031/-. From this demand letter it appears that earlier the cost was fixedat Rs . 2 ,71,502 /-, but thesame was finally reduced to Rs . 2,51,031/-. However,all this appear to be a latter development after allotment of additional landto the respondent. It would not be unreasonable to infer that additional amount Rs . 46,169/- has been charged from the respondenttowards the cost of the said additional land. There is absolutely nothing onrecord to show that the appellant-Board had ever revised the cost of the houseas originally allotted to the respondent or demanded any additional amount fromthe latter any time on or before 23-5-2003 when the possession of the house was delivered to the respondent. In any case,delay in fixation of final cost was on the part of appellant-Board and whichcould not be a justification for delay in delivery of the house to therespondent. 8.Appellant-Board claims to have written letters dated 20-7-1995, 6-8-1996, 20-11-1996,7-11-2002and 13-2-2003 requiring the respondent to get the lease/sale deed of the houseexecuted and registered. It is however, interesting to note that the respondenthas also made as many as 12 applications (vide Annexures 6 to 17) requesting appellant to deliver possession of the house to him.Receipt of all these applications were duly acknowledged by the appellant'sofficers. However, no action was taken by the appellant to deliver possessionof the house to the respondent. Significantly in neither of the aforesaidletters dated 20-7-1995, 6-8-1996, 20-11-1996, 7-11-2002 and 13-2-2003 anyreference is made to the said applications of the respondent or about thedelivery of possession of the house to the respondent. It was not the case ofthe appellant that the possession was withheld on account of non-execution oftransfer deed. It is significant to note here that ultimately possession wasdelivered to the respondent on 23-5-2003 even without execution or registration of any such transfer deeds in his favour . There was thus, no justification whatsoever for notdelivering possession of the house to the respondent even when he had depositedthe entire cost amount of the house as per appellant's demand, on 19-4-1995 . The deficiency in serviceon the part of appellant-Board was writ large. There was thus, no justification whatsoever for notdelivering possession of the house to the respondent even when he had depositedthe entire cost amount of the house as per appellant's demand, on 19-4-1995 . The deficiency in serviceon the part of appellant-Board was writ large. 9.As regards the compensation, it is seen that the respondent was deprived of hisright of use and occupation of the house for long 8 years during which time hismoney remained deposited with the appellant-Board. The respondent has clearlyaverred that the house in question was being used by appellant for it's office purpose. This allegation of the respondent hasnot been rebutted by the appellant. It appears that since officers of theappellant-Board were not able to make alternative arrangement for their officethey continued to occupy the house in question thereby depriving the respondentof his legal right to use and occupy the house. The appellant-Board wastherefore, liable to compensate the respondent adequately. The Forum below hasawarded interest byway of compensation @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited bythe respondent by way of cost of the house with the appellant for the saidperiod of 8 years. The interest awarded in our opinion, cannot be termed asexcessive. Direction for execution of necessary documents also calls for nointerference. Inthe result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with cost Rs .1,000/-