JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. The father of petitioner is present. Learned counsel for the respondent also present. Arguments heard. -2- 2. The petitioner has filed a complaint before the District Forum on 18.12.2002 wherein these prayers were made : - Damages for compensation for loss suffered by the complainant Rs.20,000/- in constructing electrical line in the flat alongwith boards having switches & plug bases.
- Refund of COST OF LAWN AND COURT YARD, not constructed by the Respondent even on receiving all the demanded costs of this GROUND FLOOR flat, in which construction of lawn and Court-yard was contracted by Respondent vide Building Plan given by it in Vivran Pustika of this house issued by it.
- Damages for compensation OF VALUE OF SUB-STANDARD MATERIAL used by Respondent Rs.50,000/-, in construction of water line, plastering of walls and grills used in the windows of the house.
-3- - Refund of depreciated value of the flat Rs.77,995/-, on handing over possession of A SEVEN YEARS DEPRECIATED HOUSE IN PLACE OF NEW HOUSE, of which all the demanded cost is received by Respondent.
- Cost of the complaint which may kindly be atleast Rs.10,000/-.”
3. The matter went upto this Commission. This Commission vide its order dated 1.10.2003 passed the following order : “These two cross petitions are directed against a common order of the State Commission. In fact, there is a concurrent finding except that the State Commission reduced the interest from 21% to 18%. What we find is that the possession was to be given on 31.10.93 and then it was to be given on 2.12.1994 as per advertisement issued by the Lucknow Development Authority. However, this stand of the LDA for the petitioner to take possession as these dates have not been accepted by the District Forum or the State Commission, as advertisement was -4- not sufficient notice to the party. In any case possession was handed over only on 2.11.2001. In the circumstances, we feel that the interest awarded @18% is quite reasonable which includes interest paid on FDR @11% and 7% will be cost of escalation. However, we find that interest has been awarded from 25.6.1996 which in our view made should have been from 1.1.1995. Accordingly, both these petitions are disposed of with the direction that interest shall be payable @18% from 1.1.1995. It is the submission of Sh. Sachan that after possession was given to him, there had been defects in the construction. For that he may move to the District Forum for remedy, if any. The petitioner again moved to the District Forum. 5. The District Forum awarded Rs.10,000/- and the same was confirmed by the State Commission. 6. The petitioner vehemently argued that he should be granted compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. He further submits that possession of the premises is in dispute but the opposite party has -5- not registered the sale deed. It is further pointed out that the opposite party had demanded a sum of Rs.6,74,109/- as balance. This was not a matter of dispute in the complaint filed before the District Forum. The petitioner states that he has not amended this complaint. It has new cause of action. The petitioner may file another complaint. In view of the order passed by the fora below and the National Commission on 1.10.2003, the petitioner has been adequately compensated. No ground is made out for further enhancement. The revision petition is dismissed. | 
