Respondent/complainant purchased a residential apartment from the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs. 25,95,500/-.  He, with the help of home loan, paid the entire consideration amount to the petitioner.  Respondent also paid a sum of Rs.76,195/- towards statutory dues.  In spite of paying the aforesaid amount, the petitioner failed to hand-over possession of the apartment to the respondent.  When the respondent approached the petitioner for handing over the possession, he was asked to pay an additional sum of Rs. 2,35,824/- towards VAT and service charges. Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, vide its order dated 15.5.2006, allowed the complaint and gave the following directions :

“Complaint is allowed.  Opposite party is directed to put the complainant in possession of the residential apartment bearing No.AL 111 in level 1, Block A by issuing the letter of possession to the complainant within 40 days from the date of this order.

The opp.party is also further directed to provide all amenities including the car parking to the complainant within the said period.

The opp. Party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.3500/- (Rs.three thousand five hundred only) per month to the complainant calculating from September 2005 till the handing over of the possession of the said apartment to the complainant.

The opp.party is further directed to pay an interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of each deposit till the end of July 2005 and thereafter 15% per annum till the delivery of the actual possession.

The opp.party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of this litigation.”

          Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by passing a short and cryptic order. 

Dispute in this case is as to who has to pay the sum of Rs.2,35,824/-.  According to the petitioner, the amount due towards VAT, service tax was to be paid by the respondent whereas according to the respondent the sum of Rs.2,35,824/- was included in the sale consideration of Rs.25,95,500/-. 

State Commission was the final court of fact but unfortunately State Commission has not recorded any finding as to whose liability it was to pay the sum of Rs.2,35,824/-.  State Commission, being the final court of fact, should have recorded a clear finding on this point by giving cogent reasons in support thereof. Order under revision is set aside.  Revision Petition is allowed and the case is remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.  All contentions are left open.  Nothing stated in this order be taken as an expression of opinion on merits.

Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 11.10.2010.

Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal within 4 months of the date of first appearance of the parties.

Revision Petition is disposed of in above terms.