PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER The complainant Anupam Pandey as well as Opposite Party Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Shankar Nagar, Raipur being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.11.2011 of the State Commission have preferred the above noted revision petitions. 2. Briefly put the facts relevant for disposal of above noted revision petitions are that complainant booked a MIG Deluxe House at Saddu Raipur with Opposite Party under self finance scheme. The complainant was duly informed about allotment of house no. 84 vide opposite party’s letter dated 06.07.2006. As per the allotment letter, price of the house was Rs.9,48,000/-. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- at the time of registration besides he deposited two instalments of Rs.2,01,000/- each within time. The balance final instalment of Rs.2,03,000/- was required to be paid at the time of delivery of possession. Before delivery of possession, the opposite party raised a demand of additional sum of Rs.2,10,000/- on the premise that final price of the house in question was worked out to be 11,89,000/-. As per the allegation in the complaint, the complainant was always prepared to pay the last instalment of Rs.2,03,000/- at the time of delivery of possession and that the demand of the opposite party for escalated cost was not justified. Complainant thus filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service in failure of the opposite party to deliver possession of the house within reasonable time besides the complainant claimed interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited by him with the opposite party. 3. The opposite party contested the allegations in the complaint on the ground that Rs.9,48,000/- was only the estimated cost of house and final cost was to be calculated after the completion of construction. That on final calculation, the price of the house was worked out to be Rs.11,89,000/-, so the notice of demand was sent to the complainant calling upon him to pay the last instalment alongwith escalated price. Besides the opposite party took the objection that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter relating to the cost of construction. It was also alleged that the complainant is not entitled to interest on the amount paid by him. 4. The District Forum on consideration of the submissions made by the parties and evidence on record partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant interest @ 6% on the amount paid by the complainant from the date of deposit of registration amount and the subsequent instalments respectively till the date of delivery of possession of house complete in all respects to the complainant. The District Forum also awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant besides cost of litigation of Rs.1000/- 5. Complainant as also the opposite party both being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum preferred respective appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned order disposed of the appeals with following observation: “The District Forum had directed payment of interest from the dates of respective payment of installments. We do not find the said direction to be proper, hence it is set aside. It is noted that the installments were required to be paid on quarterly basis and third installment was paid by the complainant on 28.3.2007. Even after generously allowing a period one year for completion of house the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 9% from 28.3.2008 over the amount of Rs.7,45,000/- deposited by him. Besides this the complainant is also entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for physical inconvenience and mental harassment due to non construction of direct approach road and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of proceedings throughout from the OPs. Appeal No.410/11 & 436/11 are hereby disposed off in aforementioned terms.” 6. Learned Shri Mohd. Anis, Advocate, appearing for the complainant has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission suffers from grave error. It is argued that the State Commission was not justified in awarding interest on the deposits made by the petitioner w.e.f. 28.03.2008 instead of respective dates of deposit of instalment. Learned counsel further contended that the State Commission instead of awarding 9% interest on the deposits ought to have awarded 18% interest and besides this, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- for delay in handing over the possession of the house is too meagre and disproportionate to the harassment and mental torture caused to the complainant. 7. We do not find merit in the above contention. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the State Commission while agreeing that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party - Housing Board, modified the order of the District Forum by awarding the interest on the deposits made by the complainant w.e.f. 28.03.2008 till the date of delivery of possession on the premise that the complainant had booked the house on self finance basis and after the payment of instalments made by the complainant, certain time was supposed to be taken by the opposite party for completing the construction of the house. The State Commission has thus given a grace of one year for completion of the house in order to fix the date from which the interest is to be paid. We do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid approach adopted by the State Commission. 8. As regards the compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical inconvenience and mental harassment due to non construction of approach road, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that aforesaid compensation is highly disproportionate to the inconvenience and harassment caused to the petitioner. On the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that there is no justification for awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- due to non construction of direct approach road for the reason that the opposite party was prevented from constructing the approach road because of the stay order of the Hon’ble High Court. Learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that since approach road could not be constructed because of the stay order of the High Court, the opposite party cannot be held to be deficient in service sofaras construction of approach road is concerned. We are in agreement with the above contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party. Thus, we do not find any justification in the plea of the complainant for enhancement of compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-. On the contrary we are of the view that there is no justification for awarding compensation on account of non construction of direct approach road as the Housing Board (O.P) was prevented from constructing the approach road because of the stay order of the Hon’ble High Court. 9. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the revision petition filed by the complainant Anupam Pandey. It is accordingly dismissed. Revision petition filed by opposite party – Housing Board is partly allowed and while maintaining the remaining order of the State Commission, we set aside the order granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of physical inconvenience and mental harassment due to non construction of direct approach road. The revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. Signed copy of the order be placed in both the files. |
