As per the complaint filed by the original complainant Mr. R.L. Gupta (since deceased and substituted by his legal heirs Mrs. Raj Rani Gupta and others), he was allotted one MIG II Flat in 1988 by Shimla Development Authority (HPA), in the category of government officials retiring within the next five years. The case of the complainant before the State Commission was that he was allotted this Flat under Rule 5 of the Registration Rules which was especially addressed to government officials who were retiring within five years from the date of the scheme. The Scheme was of 1984 and the complainant was to retire from government service in 1989. Therefore, the complainant “inferred that the flat, complete in all respects, would be made available unfailingly within a period of five years i.e. before June 1989.” 2. Allegedly, after a long wait, he was given possession in 1990. In the meanwhile, he had already retired from government service in February 1989 and had to vacate the government accommodation allotted to him. In this situation, he was compelled to hire a small accommodation at Rs.1200/- per month from September, 1989. He could not occupy the flat he had purchased, as it did not even have a basic amenity like drinking water. On 24.7.1990 he made an application to the Municipal Corporation Shimla to get a drinking water connection, which was not sanctioned till the filing of the consumer complaint in December 1991. 3. The Complainant therefore, prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. Direction to the concerned authorities to provide drinking water facility to his flat. 2. Order the SDA Shimla to pay him total compensation of Rs.130400/- towards rent paid for private accommodation, compound interest on the payments made by him to SDA and for the mental torture suffered over the period of seven and half years.” 4. The complaint was dismissed by the State Commission on 15.10.1997, on the ground that it was filed after the complainant had already taken possession of the flat. The National Commission set this order aside on 24.8.2004 observing that the defects could have been noticed only after possession had been taken by the appellant. The matter was therefore remanded to the State Commission for fresh consideration. 5. On reconsideration, the State Commission partially allowed the complaint, in the impugned order of 27.12.2006, in following terms:- (a) “Respondent No.1 is held liable to compensate the appellant for belated possession for over than 1 ½ years in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. (b) Said respondent No.1 is also held liable to indemnify the appellant for hiring private accommodation hired by the former and in this behalf also we allow lump sum compensation in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (c) Complainants are also held entitled on account of mental harassment inconvenience caused to them because of belated possession by respondent No.1 to a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Other claims made in the complaint are hereby turned down; (d) Respondent No.2 is also held liable to pay compensation to the complainants in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for belatedly providing the water supply.” 6. This order of the Himachal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.71 of 1991 has been challenged in two separate appeals filed before this Commission by the two Opposite Parties. OP –1, HP Housing and Urban Development Authority formerly (HP Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran) has filed FA No.88 of 2007 and OP -2, Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Shimla has filed FA No.202 of 2007. The appeal of OP-1 was filed within the prescribed time limit of 30 days, but the appeal of OP-2 was filed with a delay of 46 days. However, considering the explanation of the appellant and in the background of the fact that both are connected appeals arising from the same impugned order, the delay has been condoned. 7. The two appeals are therefore, taken up for disposal together, through this common order. We have perused the records and heard the counsels for the parties. 8. The main ground raised in the appeal of OP-1 (SDA) is that the reference to the period of five years in the relevant housing scheme was to determine the eligibility of the concerned applicants. According to the appeal Memorandum, “the reasoning of the State Commission is erroneous since the eligibility condition related to the upper income limit so that the persons who retire will get a lesser income after retirement and, therefore, will be eligible for registration under the Scheme.” 9. The relevant provision (Rule 5) in the Scheme read— “A person in public service whose annual income exceeds the prescribed limit but who is to retire within five years from the time of applying may apply for registration for a house according to his income after retirement. Certificate from the Competent Authority towards that effect will have to be submitted” 10. Learned counsel for the appellants therefore argued that it did not constitute any stipulation of the date by which possession was required to be handed over to the allotees. The counsel went on to argue that there was no specific date for delivery under the Scheme. 11. The inherent fallacy of this argument is that the expected date of completion of the project would remain an open issue and an allotee would have no idea of when to expect the possession. In this background, the State Commission held that, from the clause addressed to employees retiring within five years, it could be inferred that possession was intended to be delivered within this period. The State Commission has also observed, “When specifically asked as to what was the purpose of keeping category of persons who were likely to retire within five years, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 had no answer.” We therefore, agree with the conclusion reached by the State Commission that possession was intended to be delivered within five years. Accordingly, there was delay in handing over possession of the Flat to him. 12. Coming to the duration of delay, there is no dispute that the possession was delivered in January 1990 (14.11.1990, as per the complaint petition). The appellant, OP-1 has therefore questioned the claim of the complainant for 27 months’ rent i.e. with effect from 1.9.1989 till the filing of the complaint. The appellant has pointed out that the respondent/complainant had himself informed the appellant OP-1 that he had shifted from Shimla to Delhi. The letter of the respondent/complainant in this behalf, was written on 10.12.1989 and received by the appellant/OP-1 on 26.12.1989. This letter is on record. In response, the affidavit evidence of Praveen Kumar Gupta, son of the late original complainant has merely stated that:- “It is evident from para No.7 of the complaint that the complainant has mentioned that he was compelled to vacate the government accommodation and shifted to a hired flat at a monthly rent of Rs.1200/- at Sheetal Cottage, Bothwell Estate, Shimla-6 w.e.f. 1st Sept. 1986. He has mentioned that he has paid a sum of Rs. 32,400/- as rent.” 13. This does not answer the question where was the need to pay rent at Shimla after the deceased had shifted to Delhi. However, in this behalf we note that the State Commission has awarded only Rs.15,000/- and not the claimed amount of Rs. 32,400/-. We therefore, do not consider it necessary to delve any further on this ground for appeal. 14. In the other appeal, filed by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, the main ground urged is that the State Commission has awarded Rs.10,000/- against the corporation, for the delay in provision of water supply, when there was no prayer for compensation made by the complainant. The complainant had only prayed for direction to give a new water connection and, in fact, the said new water connection was already given and installed on 8.9.1992. but, in the written response on behalf of the complainants, it is stated that the appellant corporation itself accepts the delay in water supply in Para 3 (iii) of its appeal memorandum. The relevant para states— “The application dated 24.7.1990 of the complainant could not be acceded because there was neither sufficient water supply for giving new connections in areas outside the municipal limits nor was there sufficient infrastructure by that time and the said flat was also not completed by that time.” 15. This admission of delay notwithstanding, we note the observation of the State Commission that, “No reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 and according to its learned counsel his client’s stand is as set out by Respondent No.1 in its reply.” The State Commission has also observed that no evidence was produced on behalf of Respondent No 2/Municipal Corporation, that the complainant was asked to deposit any amount and that he had failed to do so. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the State Commission has awarded the compensation on 27.12.2006, when the water supply had already been given on 8.9.1992. We would like to note that delay in sanction and supply of water to his flat was the sole cause that prompted the consumer complaint. The complaint was filed in December 1991 and the water supply was given in September 1992. In this background we do not find any error in the decision of the State Commission to direct the appellant Corporation to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 17. Both appellants have also urged that the complaint did not lie within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission as the relief claimed was only Rs.1,30,400/-. We note that at the time this complaint was filed, pecuniary jurisdiction of a State Commission extended to all complaints exceeding rupees one lakh and not exceeding rupees ten lakhs. Therefore, this plea is rejected. 18. For the reasons detailed above, we find no merit in these two appeals. The same are therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. | 
