ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Presiding Member
1. Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where he has filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had applied for a flat by way of registration in March 1977 on payment of Rs. 5,000. Another Rs. 5,000 were deposited in August 1988 and Registration Certificate was issued in August 1990. The petitioner was allotted a flat in March 1993, priced at Rs. 3,51,688. The terms of payment were indicated in the letter of allotment dated 5.3.1993. Having paid a total amount of Rs. 1,40,675 in instalments in March and June, 1993, when the possession had not been given and prices were being escalated, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, directed the respondent to hand over the possession and also pay interest on the deposited amount 12% p.a. from November 1993 till the date of delivery of possession and also directed that the payments of instalments will start from the date of delivery of possession. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. Aggrieved by this order, this re vision petition has been filed before us only on the point of grant of interest on the deposited amount.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that allotment letter was issued in 1993 and two instalments amounting to Rs. 1,40,675 were paid in March and June, 1993, whereas the price of the flat was at Rs. 3,51,688. As per allotment letter there were several options with regard to mode/ period of payment(s). Admittedly, no instalment was paid after the above stated amounts, till October 1999 and November 1999, when instalment of Rs. 3,740 each was paid. We need not traverse any further except to say that the petitioner could not expect the other party to honour its part of the deal, without the petitioner honouring its own part of the agreement. As per record, no payment was made after June 1993 till October 1999. If in these circumstances, possession was not given, we see that it was the petitioner who was deficient and not the respondent.
4. The State Commission has noted that possession has since been given and also that the re-costing of the flat has been accepted by the respondent, in view of which, we agree with the State Commission that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the deposited amount. This would have been so, had the petitioner been paying its instalment as per the letter of allotment dated 5.3.1993. No Public Authority can be expected to unilaterally complete the housing project without the money coming from the allottees as per arrangement agreed to between the parties. In this case, the petitioner failed to honour its part of agreement in view of which, no deficiency can be fastened on the respondent.
5. In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in the revision petition, hence dismissed.