ORDER Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 01.01.2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana ('State Commission' for short) by which the State Commission had dismissed the appeal of the opposite party, petitioner herein, against the order of the District Forum dated 01.10.2001. By its order, the District Forum while accepting the complaint of the complainant, respondent herein. issued the following directions to the opposite party:- "In these circumstances, the respondent is directed to charge the same rate of alternate plot at which the original plot was allotted to the complainant. The respondent is further directed to pay interest over the deposited amount at the rate as per HUDA policy after two years from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of possession of alternate plot. 2. Briefly stated. the facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted a residential plot no.161, Sector-21, Gurgaon by the opposite party vide letter no.8710 dated 19.05.1986 but its physical possession could not be delivered to the complainant due to some litigation pending in respect of the plot in question. Thereafter, opposite party offered an alternative plot no.67 in Sector-5, Part III, Gurgaon vide letter memo no.2949 dated 12.09.1996 and the offer was accepted by way of compulsion since as per version of the 'complainant, she was compelled to accept the same otherwise the opposite party might have cancelled the allotment of the plot. The complainant alleged that the offer was made by the opposite party at higher rate as compared to the rate at which the original plot was allotted. The complainant, therefore, approached the opposite party requesting it to charge the same rate at which the plot was allotted. Having failed to pursue the opposite party to agree to her request, the complainant lodged consumer complaint with the District Forum for issuing directions to the opposite party to charge only the cost of the original plot and also not to demand any amount in excess of the rate of the originally allotted plot. She also requested for payment of interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till the delivery of the possession of the alternate plot and a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/on account of increase in the cost of construction and mental agony and harassment. She also requested for payment of interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till the delivery of the possession of the alternate plot and a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/on account of increase in the cost of construction and mental agony and harassment. On notice, the opposite party resisted the complaint by filing a written statement praying for dismissal of the complaint. On appraisal of the issues raised and analyzing the pleadings and the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum accepted the complaint by issuing the aforesaid directions against the opposite party. On the matter being carried out by the opposite party before the State Commission through an appeal, the same did not find favour with the State Commission and was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits by the State Commission. 3. Arguments of the counsels for both the parties have been heard and record perused. The petitioner Authority has submitted that in spite of offer of the alternate plot to her and also her initial acceptance of the offer, the complainant herself rejected the offer made by the petitioner Authority and hence the complainant by her own act and conduct is estopped from filing the complaint in the matter. The same, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner Authority also pleaded that once the alternate plot is accepted by the allottee, he is bound to pay the enhanced price of the alternate plot. He further submitted that the for a below have also directed the petitioner Authority to pay interest on the deposited amount at the rate as per HUDA policy after two years from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of possession of the alternative plot. He submitted that there was no policy of HUDA under which any interest can be given in such circumstances. According to him, the allotment of the plot at original cost and yet allowing the interest amounts to unjust enrichment of the complainant. He has placed reliance in this regard on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank [(2007) 6 SCC 711]. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent has cited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. He has placed reliance in this regard on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank [(2007) 6 SCC 711]. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent has cited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vijay Aggarwal (MANU/SC/0558/2004) and the orders passed by this Commission in the cases of HUDA Vs. Alka Aggarwal in RP No.3335 of 2003 and HUDA Vs. Neelam Mehra in RP No.3260 of 2003 both decided on 11.12.2003 to support his case. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties and the contentions raised at the bar. There are two issues in this case, which are required to be decided. The first one is as to whether the direction given by the for a below to the OP-Authority for allotment of the altemate plot at the same old rates at which the initial plot was allotted is legal and secondly as to whether the direction regarding payment of interest on the amount deposited at the rate as per HUDA policy after two years from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of possession of alternate plot is legally sustainable. There is no doubt in our mind regarding the legality of the first direction in respect of charging of the original rate of plot and this view has been time and again upheld by this Commission. The decision given by this Commission in the two cases relied upon by the counsel for the respondent/complainant confirms this position. We therefore do not find any flaw with the order of the for a below in regard to the direction of charging the original rate in respect of alternate plot as well. So far as the second issue is concerned, we find that while disposing of the appeal in the case of HUDA Vs. Vijay Aggarwal (Supra) referred to by the counsel for the respondent/complainant, the Apex Court had clarified that the order therein shall not be taken as a precedent in any other matter as the same had been passed taking special features of the case into account. The Apex Court further directed that the consumer for a /Commission will follow the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (AIR 2004 SC 2141). The Apex Court further directed that the consumer for a /Commission will follow the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (AIR 2004 SC 2141). This takes us to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh as further examined and elaborated by the Apex Court through its judgment delivered in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank (supra) which has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner Authority. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the later judgment delivered in the Bangalore Development Authority's case to the present case, we are of the considered view that direction to the petitioner Authority to pay interest in addition to the direction for charging the original rate of allotment is not justified and hence cannot be sustained in the given facts and. circumstances of this case. It has, however, been brought to our notice that there was delay of about 10 years in offering the alternate plot whose possession could also not be taken over by the complainant because of the insistence of the petitioner Authority to charge enhanced rate thereby causing immense mental agony and harassment to the complainant, there is a strong case for award of suitable compensation to the complainant. We accept this submission keeping in view the undisputed facts of this case and hence direct payment of a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant. 5. Accordingly the order of the District Forum is modified and it is hereby directed that the possession of the alternate plot at the same rate at which the original plot was allotted shall be handed over by the petitioner Authority to the respondent within a period of four weeks, if not handed over already, and the petitioner Authority shall also pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant. The revision petition stands disposed of in terms of these directions but with no order as to costs.