As per case facts, this batch of appeals arose from varying situations where development authorities like GDA failed to deliver possession of flats/plots, cancelled schemes, offered alternative plots at increased ... rates, or made demands for extra amounts. Consumer Forums, following a previous ruling, consistently granted 18% annual interest without examining individual case facts, often increasing lower rates set by District/State Forums. The Supreme Court consolidated these cases to address the uniformity in interest awards.The question arose whether Consumer Forums were justified in awarding a uniform 18% annual interest rate across all cases, irrespective of the specific facts, nature of loss, or delay, when dealing with deficiency of service by public authorities, and if this interest rate was an appropriate form of compensation for both financial loss and harassment.Finally, the Supreme Court held that a uniform 18% interest rate is not justifiable across all cases. Compensation, including for harassment and agony, must be determined based on specific facts, correlated to the actual loss or injury suffered by the consumer. It clarified that misfeasance in public office leads to liability for compensation. The Court directed that future awards should specify compensation under different heads with reasons, allowing for varying interest rates based on prevailing financial institution rates and the type of delay (e.g., possession delayed vs. money refunded). However, for cases where 18% interest has already been paid, authorities cannot demand a refund.