1.      The present Revision Petition ( RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents, as detailed above, under Section 21of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 30.09.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the  State Commission’) in First Appeal ( FA) No.A/00/1697 in which order dated 22.03.2000 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum South Mumbai ( hereinafter referred to as District Forum ) in    Consumer Complaint  (CC) No. 1143 of 1997 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 30.09.2016 of the State Commission.

2.      Petitioner has challenged the said order dated 30.09.2016 of the State Commission  inter alia on the following grounds :

a.      The Impugned judgment granted relief which is not even claimed by the respondents.

b.      Petitioner had no notice of the  hearing of the First Appeal since Appeal had been adjourned sine-die.

c.       If the envelope containing notice had been returned back with the remark as ‘left’, then alternate mode for service ought to have been adopted before deciding the matter.

d.      The appeal was to be listed for admission and could not have been taken up directly for final hearing.

e.      The Respondents obtained the impugned order by suppressing the material facts.

f.       The fact of having receiving the possession and having sold the subject flat has  been suppressed by the respondents thereby trying to take advantage of the absence of the petitioners and respondents having sold the flat had lost the locus to continue with the petition and respondents are not at all entitled to claim any delayed compensation.

g.      It was never the claim of the respondents to seek possession of the premises, as ordered by State Commission.

h.      The possession of the premises was handed over to the respondents on 23.01.1997 even before the consumer complaint was filed on 17.03.1997. 

i.        Had Petitioners been present before the State Commission, they would have pointed out that respondents have already sold the premises in the  year 2007 by way of a registered sale deed and therefore, there is no question of handing them over possession of said premises, which was not even prayed for.

j.        District Forum was right in holding that due to non issuance of Occupation Certificate by the Kalyan Municipal Corporation, the Petitioners are not liable to pay compensation for delay in handing over the possession.

k.       Handing over of possession was delayed because of the time taken for obtaining the occupancy certificate from the competent authority as was rightly held by the District Forum and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

3.      Heard counsel for both sides. 

4.      Counsel for the Petitioner contends that State Commission has committed a material irregularity as prima facie the relief granted under sub para 3 of para 7 is not what the complainant had prayed for in the Consumer Complaint.  The possession of the unit in question was given even before the Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Forum.  This fact is admitted by the counsel for the respondent.  Both sides also admit that in this case the committed date of possession as per the agreement ( which is not on record ) was 31.12.1995, possession was given on 23.01.1997, occupancy certificate though applied on 15.11.1996, was obtained on 14.10.1997.  Hence, it is contended by the respondents that possession offered on 23.01.1997 was not a valid possession.  We tend to agree with this contention of the respondents as possession has to be offered with a valid occupancy certificate. 

5.      It was pointed out by the petitioner that total cost of the unit in question was Rs.2,78,535/- only and State Commission has ordered not only the possession but also compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-, which is highly  unreasonable and disproportionate.  We tend to agree with this contention of the Petitioner.

6.      We have gone through the complaint filed before the District Forum.  It was only with respect to the delayed compensation, interest etc and not with respect to the possession.  Hence, prima facie, we find a material irregularity in the order of the State Commission.  Accordingly, same need to be modified. 

7.      After going through the orders of both the Fora below, we hereby modify the order / relief as follows :

a.      The Petitioner herein ( OP before the District Forum ) shall be liable to pay delayed compensation to the Complainants ( Respondents herein) in the form of Simple Interest @ 6% p.a. from the committed date of possession i.e. 31.12.1995  till the date of obtaining occupancy certificate i.e. 14.10.1997. 

b.      The Petitioner herein shall also  pay litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondents herein.

c.       The Petitioner shall pay the amount as per this order within 45 days of this order. 

d.      The amount deposited with the District Forum / State Commission shall be  duly adjusted and balance paid to the Respondents.     In case the amount deposited by the Petitioner herein (Opposite Party) is more than the amount payable, balance shall be refunded to the Opposite Party within 45 days.

8.      Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.