In this revision by the complainant against the order dated 11.5.2010 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alipore, Kolkata vide order dated 1.9.2010 notice was issued limited to award of compensation to the respondents/ opposite parties vide order dated 1.9.2010. 

          In short, the petitioner/ complainant alleged in the complaint that pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No.1 sometime in August 2000 he applied for a plot in Pailan Green Project floated by respondent No. 1 and made payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards booking amount.  By March, 2004 the balance consideration money was also  paid  in  instalments.  Petitioner was given to understand that respondent No. 1 had merged with respondent No. 2 which was represented by respondent No. 3.  Respondents had failed to complete the development work and execute the conveyance deed of the plot in favour of the petitioner.  Attributing deficiency in service, certain reliefs were claimed in the complaint filed on 16.10.2008 which was contested by the respondents by filing written version.  By the order dated 19.1.2010, the District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the respondents to complete the development work and execute and register the conveyance deed of the plot; pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount from the last payment of the instalment; pay Rs. 15,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and cost.  Dis-satisfied with Forum’s order the respondents filed appeal.  Stand taken by the respondents in appeal was that as the respondents were unable to develop the plots, the land had been transferred under a registered conveyance deed in favour of 3^rd party.  Considering this stand and after hearing the parties, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum by directing refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 1,66,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 16.12.2003 till the date of actual payment and cost of Rs. 30,000/- by the respondents to the petitioner.

          Thrust of argument advanced by Shri Pravat Sen. Eshore for the petitioner is that as the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of the plot, the State Commission should have also awarded adequate compensation to the petitioner.  In support of the submission, reliance is placed on the decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority  Vs. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65.  In para No. 9 of this decision, the apex court has held that:

“….But in cases where monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering a loss in as much as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot.  He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot.  Therefore, the compensation in such would necessarily have to be higher.”

          Admittedly, the petitioner who had booked a plot sometime in the year 2000 was not given the possession of developed plot up to the date of filing of the complaint.   As noticed above, the stand taken before the State commission by the respondents was that they were unable to develop the plots and, therefore, the land itself had been sold to a 3^rd party under a registered conveyance deed.  In view of these facts and the ratio in Balbir Singh’s case (supra), the petitioner is entitled to compensation in addition to the interest awarded on the amount deposited which we, in the facts and circumstances of case,  quantify at Rs. 50,000/-.  Order of the State Commission, thus, deserve to be modified to that extent.

Accordingly, while partly allowing revision, aforesaid order of the State Commission is modified to the extent that the respondents are further liable to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner.   Respondents will also pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner. 

          This amount will be paid within four weeks from today.