Delay of 76 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant purchased and took possession of office unit No. 204 M M Plaza, Janak Puri, New Delhi on 07.2.2005 from the petitioner.  According to him, at the time of sale, the petitioner had assured him that the material used in the construction was of good quality and in case, any problem with regard to construction of building arises, the same would be rectified forthwith. 

-2-

Case of the respondent was that the petitioner had used sub-standard material resulting in quicker wear and tear of the building.  There was leakage in various parts of the building.  Complainant was particularly affected by the leakage of the public toilets on the 2^nd floor and the 3^rd floor and because of the sub-standard material used by the petitioner.  The complainant was unable to even enter in his office; that the walls and furniture was damaged due to the seepage of water.  Inspite of several requests made to the petitioner by the complainant, petitioner did not respond to it or rectified the defects.  Aggrieved by this, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum vide its order dated 06.2.2008 disposed of the complaint by awarding a lump sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

          Petitioner as well as the respondent filed separate appeals before the State Commission.  Petitioner approached for dismissal of the complaint whereas the respondent approached for enhancement of the compensation.  The State Commission enhanced the

-3-

compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1 Lac on the ground that the respondent had been inadequately compensated, but without recording any evidence.

          We have no doubt in our mind that the State Commission has the jurisdiction to increase the amount of compensation but the same has to be done after recording reasons in support of the increase made.  We find from the order that the State Commission has not given any reasons, whatsoever, for increasing the compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1 Lac.  It is well settled by now that if the order of the subordinate authority is to be set aside or modified, reasons have to be recorded for the same.  The reversal or modification of the order without record reasons would be arbitrary.

          For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the State Commission is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 07.4.2010.

-4-

            Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal within 6 months of the date of first appearance.  The State Commission should decide the appeal without being influence by any of the observations made in the impugned order of the State Commission or in this order.