By these 14 Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), the Town Improvement Trust, Bhatinda (for short “the Trust”), calls in question the correctness and legality of the orders, all dated 24.11.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First appeals No. 298-302, 381, 452-458 and 460 of 2016.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the orders dated 29.02.2016, 31.03.2016, 04.05.2016 and 11.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhatinda (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No.496, 457, 494, 493, 618, 456, 491, 720, 715, 497, 722, 495 and 646 of 2014 and 495 of 2014.  By the said order, while accepting the Complaints filed by the Respondents herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Trust in not delivering the possession of the flats allotted to them sometime in the year 2010, in the Housing Scheme

-5-

christened as “Transport Nagar Scheme” at Manmohan Kalia Enclave, Goniana Road, Bathinda, had directed the Petitioners to pay to each of the Complainants compensation @ ₹10,000/- per month from 27.10.2013 till the date of delivery of actual physical possession of the flats, on completion of basic amenities with cost of litigation, quantified at ₹5,000/-.  However, the District Forum declined to award any compensation of ₹50,000/- claimed by each of the Complainants on account of botheration etc.

2.            We have heard Mr. Modi, learned Counsel appearing for the Trust.

3.            Relying on Clause 10 of the brochure, issued by the Trust at the time of inviting Applications, learned Counsel has strenuously urged that the stipulated period of two years and six months for completion of the flats, in semi-finished condition, was tentative, and therefore, both the Forums below have committed serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that there was inordinate delay on the part of the Trust in offering possession of the said flats, sometime in February 2014.  It is also alleged that though the possession of the flats in semi-finished condition, was offered to the Complainants, in the year 2014, they refused to accept the same on the plea that the basic amenities were still not in place in the Complex.

-6-

4.            Having carefully glanced through the material on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel.

5.            As regards the submission that since the period for completion of the flats, fixed in the afore-noted Clause was tentative and therefore, it could not be held that the delay in the offer of possession in the year 2014 was an inordinate delay, we are of the view that even going by the version of the Trust that the offer of possession was made sometime in the year 2014, such an offer after a lapse of almost two years over and above the stated tentative period of 2 years 6 months, cannot be considered as reasonable delay.  As a matter of fact, Resolution No.56, passed by the Trust on 17.11.2013, relied upon by the State Commission, shows that even according to the Trust, the possession of the flats was to be delivered by 26.10.2013.  Therefore, the question whether there was inordinate delay in completion of the flats, has to be examined, keeping in view the said date, i.e., 26.10.2013.  On this aspect, as well as on the allegation that the Complainants had declined to accept the offer of possession made in the year 2014, has observed as follows:

            “At the time of arguments it was admitted by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party that Resolution No.56 passed by the Opposite Party was sent to the State Government for approval and that in Agenda Item No.4 thereof it was mentioned “the

-7-

possession of the Flats was to be delivered by 26.10.2013 and that the same were not complete during that period and the period of six months more shall be

taken for delivering the possession to the allottees”.  That admission made by the Opposite Party in its own resolution proves beyond any doubt that the possession of the Flat was to be delivered to the complainant on or before 26.10.2013.  Admittedly, the same was not given to him by that date and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

11.       The next question to be decided is, whether the offer of possession made to the complainant, vide letter dated 21.2.2014 Ex.OP-1/5 was a valid offer?  That very letter was proved by the complainant on the record as Ex.C-10.  It is mentioned in that letter itself that the work of installing the lifts was still not complete.  The complainant was asked whether he was still ready to accept that offer of possession without the completion of that work.  Therefore, it cannot be said that it was a valid offer of possession.  It is pertinent to note that after receiving that letter the complainant had sent his reply Ex.C-11, in which he detailed a number of works which were incomplete and were to be carried out for the completion of the semi-finished flat.  After the complainant gave that reply the Opposite Party kept silent and that silence amounts to admission of the facts stated in that reply.  The complainant also proved on record letter dated 3.4.2014, Ex.C-12, which was written by its Executive Engineer to the Regional Deputy Director, Local Self Government Department.  In that letter he gave the details regarding the flats, which were being constructed in this Scheme.  He also mentioned therein that the work regarding the H.T.L.T. electricity, fire fighting, lifts and land scaping was still incomplete.  Thus the Opposite Party itself had been admitting that works were still incomplete whereas as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties, it was the possession of the complete semi-finished flat, which was to be delivered to the complainant.  The Opposite Party cannot escape its liability just by sending letter dated 21.2.2014 offering the possession of the Flat to the complainant, which was never complete in all the respects.  Thus, the offer made by the Opposite Party was not a valid offer.  In these circumstances, it is to be held that the findings recorded by the District Forum are

-8-

correct and there is no scope for interfering with the same.

                        (underlined for ready reference)

6.            The afore-extracted concurrent findings of fact being based on cogent material, in the form of Trust’s own record, and not challenged in these Petitions as being perverse on any ground whatsoever, do not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality, warranting interference.

7.            Thus, the question surviving for consideration is as to whether or not the direction by the Fora Below to the Trust to pay to the Complainants compensation of ₹10,000/- per month, is justified?  On this aspect, the State Commission has observed as under:

        12.    The District Forum allowed compensation to the complainant at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month with effect from the date on which the possession was to be delivered to the complainant till the date of delivery of actual possession of the flat after providing all the basic amenities.  This compensation cannot be said to be on the higher side keeping in view the price of the flat and that for the payment of instalments the complainant had obtained loan from the Bank.  In his letter dated 11.4.2014, Ex.C-11, he has specifically mentioned that he was living in tenanted house and is also paying interest on the loan obtained by him from the Bank on account of the non-delivery of the possession of the flat.

(emphasis supplied)

8.            In the light of the afore-extracted factual scenario, the said compensation cannot be held to be excessive or unreasonable in any manner.

-9-

9.            Nevertheless, as it is pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Trust that all the basic amenities in the Complex are available and many similarly situated allotteess have already been put in possession and are residing in their respective flats, we direct that if the Trust offers possession of the flats in question to the Complainants, in the condition these were to be made available under the Scheme, with basic amenities, like sewerage, drinking water supply, lifts etc., if these were to be provided, the Trust shall not be liable to pay to the Complainants/allottees the compensation, as directed by the lower Fora, after the expiry of two months of the date of the said offer.  This direction is being issued without notice to the Complainants in order to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to them and additional financial burden on the Trust in bearing their travel and allied expenses.

10.          Resultantly, there being no Jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, on both the afore-noted grounds canvassed before us, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly.