PRONOUNCED ON: 3rd March 2017 ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 18.03.2016, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. A/1307/2014, Jayesh Sen vs. West Bengal Housing Board & Ors., vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata on 29.09.2014 in Consumer Complaint No. 143/2014, filed by the present respondent, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in response to an advertisement made in November, 2007 by the opposite party (OP) Housing Board in newspapers for sale of flats in their Moonbean Project, the complainant Jayesh Sen applied for MIG flat on 17.12.2007 and deposited application money of Rs. 50,000/-. The OP Housing Board issued a provisional allotment letter dated 07.05.2008 to the complainant, allotting flat no. M-17B/14 and asked the complainant to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 7,88,600/- after deducting the application money of Rs. 50,000/- from the total consideration of Rs. 8,38,600/-. Since there was a delay of a few days in making the payment, the complainant deposited the said amount with penal interest of Rs. 12,834/- in terms of the conditions given in the brochure. However, the OPs failed to honour their promise to hand over the flat alongwith common area facilities by the end of 2008. The possession of the flat was handed over on 03.10.2012, as stated in the complaint. Since the OPs had promised in their brochure to compensate for the delay in handing over the common area facilities by payment of savings bank rate of interest on the deposited amount for the period of delay, the complainant made a claim of Rs. 1,12,065/- as compensation for the delay of 40 months. However, the OPs took the stand that the power connection was not provided to them by the concerned authority and hence, they could not hand over the facilities for reasons beyond their control. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP Housing Board, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking payment of promised interest of Rs. 1,12,065/- and compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for mental harassment etc. The complaint was resisted by the OP Housing Board by filing their written version before the District Forum, in which they stated that the common area facilities had been handed over to the Apartment Owners’ Association on 04.05.2012 by the OP Housing Board. The sale deed had also been executed on 03.10.2012. However, the delay in handing over the common area facilities was due to the failure of the statutory authority to provide supply of electricity to them and hence, the said delay occurred for reasons beyond the control of the OP Housing Board. 3. The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, dismissed the consumer complaint, saying that the consumer had not suffered any loss or damage due to delay in handing over the possession and hence, he was not entitled for any compensation. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order, directed to pay an amount of Rs. 94,275/- as compensation in the form of simple interest @ 3% per annum on the paid amount of Rs. 8,38,000/- for a period of 45 months. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the OP Housing Board is before us by way of the present Revision Petition. 4. At the time of admission hearing, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in handing over the possession occurred due to the non-release of electric connection for the project by the concerned authorities of the Government. The Housing Board, being not at fault, was not liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the said delay. 5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 6. A perusal of the material on record including the grounds of the Revision Petition indicates that the brochure published by the OP Housing Board in respect of the Scheme in question, stated categorically that the Board will compensate for delay in handing over common areas facilities (CAF) to the allottees by payment of interest prevailing in Savings Bank Account in State Bank of India for the period from January, 2009 upto the date of giving possession of CAF. It is clear from record that the Board failed to provide the property and the common area facilities within time and as per their version, the delay occurred because the power connection for the project from the Government authority could not be procured in time. We, however, do not have any material to disagree with the findings given by the State Commission that this was not any unforeseen situation beyond the control of the Housing Board. The OP Housing Board is a statutory body that works under the control of the Government of West Bengal. It was their duty to get in touch promptly with their sister organisations, whose job was to provide power connection to them. For the failure of the concern authority to provide power connection, the consumers/complainants cannot be allowed to suffer by any stretch of imagination. The delay of almost four years in handing over the connection to the complainants has not been explained satisfactorily by the Housing Board, therefore. 7. As per the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed compensation in the form of simple interest at a meagre rate of 3% per annum only on the amount of deposit for a period of 45 months. In our opinion, the complainant deserves to be compensated at a much higher rate of interest for the delay in giving possession of the property to them. However, since the said order is not under challenge before us by the complainants, we are inclined to hold that the compensation as allowed by the State Commission shall only be payable to the complainants. In the light of the discussion above, this Revision Petition is ordered to be dismissed in limine. The OP Housing Board is directed to provide the said compensation to the complainant within a period of four weeks from today, otherwise they will have to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount deposited, as already ordered by the State Commission. This Revision Petition, therefore, stands dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. |
