JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      The complainant/respondent booked a flat with the petitioner-board in its self-financing scheme. The cost of the aforesaid flat, inclusive of taxes was fixed at Rs.6,13,919/- and was paid by the complainant on      30-04-2009. However, possession was not offered to the complainant immediately after the aforesaid payment. Vide possession letter dated   22-04-2010 the petitioner-board offered possession of a house No.299 in Kabir Nagar, Raipur to the complainant. The complainant who is present in the court states that the aforesaid letter dated 22-04-2010 was received by him on the same date but the construction of the house was not complete at that time. The complainant then made an endorsement dated 11-08-2011 on the aforesaid possession letter, recording thereon that till 11-08-2011 the house was incomplete and, therefore, he was not in a position to take its possession. The possession letter was signed by an officer of the petitioner-board on 11-08-2011, in token of having received the same. Since the construction of the above-referred house was not complete, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking the following reliefs:

(i)      the house be given on lease for 30 years from 11-8-2011,

(ii)      Rs.1,500/- per month as security charges be not imposed,

(iii)     guarantee of 30 years fitness be given,

(iv)    Rs.94,000/- taken as additional cost be refunded,

(v)     Rs.1,20,000/- be paid to him for the alternate house taken on rent,

(vi)    18% interest per annum be awarded on the total amount paid by him of Rs.6,13,919/- which comes to Rs.3,72,039/-,

(vii)    Rs.2,00,000/- be paid as compensation for mental agony.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner-board on the ground that the complainant did not take possession of the house within 15 days of the letter dated 22-04-2010, as was stipulated in the said letter. It was further stated in the reply that minor defects, if any, could have been rectified after the complainant had already taken possession.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 13-08-2012 directed the petitioner-board to give possession of the aforesaid flat to the complainant along with Rs.1,50,000/- towards estimated cost of repair. The petitioner-board was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent from 22-04-2010 till actual possession. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.6,13,919/- paid by the complainant to the petitioner-board was also awarded, besides Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner-board approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 12-02-2014 the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-board. Being aggrieved the petitioner-board is before us by way of this revision petition.

5.      The first question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the construction of the house offered to the complainant vide letter dated 22-04-2010 was complete or not at the time the possession of the said house was offered to him and, if so, what consequence would follow for the petitioner-board on account of offering possession of an incomplete house.

6.      Though the petitioner-board has denied the allegation of the complainant that the house was incomplete even on 11-08-2011, we are not inclined to accept the case of the petitioner-board in this regard. Had this house been complete, the petitioner-board on receiving the letter dated 22-04-2010 along with the endorsement of the complainant dated 11-08-2011 would certainly have controverted the endorsement made by the complainant and would have written to him saying that the construction of the house offered to him by the board was complete and the endorsement made by him on the letter dated 22-04-2010 was a false endorsement. That having not been done, the inference would be that the construction of the house was actually incomplete and that is why the petitioner-board did not controvert the endorsement made to this effect by the complainant. Even otherwise, we cannot accept that having waited for a house for more than four years the complainant would refuse to take possession even if the house is complete. There could be no reason for the complainant to refuse the possession of a complete house when he had already paid the entire cost of the house to the petitioner-board. We also notice that the complainant produced, before the District Forum, photographs showing several defects in the house offered to him by the petitioner-board. The petitioner-board, however, did not file any photographs to establish, before the District Forum that the construction in the said house was complete in all respects. No official of the board was produced by the petitioner to prove before the District Forum that the construction in the aforesaid house was complete in all respects when the possession was offered to the complainant on 22-04-2010. In these circumstances, we are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the District Forum and accepted by the State Commission in this regard. We accordingly hold that the house which the petitioner-board offered to the complainant vide letter dated 22-04-2010 was not complete and there were defects in the house even on                   11-08-2011.

7.      It was obligatory for the petitioner-board to offer a house complete in all respects and free from any defect, to the complainant vide letter dated 22-04-2010. Offering possession of a house which was not complete in all respects and/or had several defects in it was certainly a deficiency in the services provided by the petitioner-board to the complainant.

8.      The complainant who is present before us states that though possession of the aforesaid house has been taken by him after the order of the District Forum, the defects in the house continue to persist. We, therefore, direct the petitioner-board to rectify all the defects in the house No.299, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Engineer of the petitioner-board within eight weeks from today and file a compliance report, signed by the concerned Chief Engineer, before the District Forum within 10 weeks from today. If the petitioner-board fails to comply with this direction it shall pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the District Forum to the complainant, so as to enable him to carry out the requisite repairs.

9.      We also direct that the petitioner-board shall pay interest to the complainant at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.6,13,919/- with effect from 22-04-2010 till the date on which the defects in the house are removed to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Engineer in terms of this order, or the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is paid to the complainant for removal of the defects.

          We also direct the petitioner-board to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation as awarded by the District Forum.

10.    The orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission stand modified accordingly and the revision petition stands disposed of.