1.      This appeal has been filed by the Complainant/appellant, Harihar Das, against the order dated 31-07-2015 passed in CD Case No.91 of 1995 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (in short ‘the State Commission’), wherein the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant has been dismissed.

2.      As per the facts of the complaint case, Odisha State Housing Board- opposite party No.1 initiated a scheme to construct a Housing Colony at Sandhakuda, Paradip over the land allotted by State Government.  The complainant participated in the scheme on depositing Rs.42,000/- whereafter one HIG House bearing No.10 was allotted in his favour vide letter dated 30.9.1994 and the complainant was asked to deposit the balance initial amount of Rs.1,62,047/- on or before 31.10.1994, i.e. before taking possession of the house.  The complainant under compulsion deposited the initial cost of Rs.2,04,047/- and requested opposite party No.1 to intimate him the actual date of giving physical possession vide letters dated 30.9.1994 and 09.11.1994, but there was no response.  In the meantime, the cost of the house was hiked to Rs.4,10,207/- and again to Rs.5,89,650/- and opposite parties directed the complainant to deposit the initial cost of Rs.3,55,790/-, besides the earlier deposit and vide letter dated 14.2.1995 fixed the rate of instalment.  As per the case of the complainant, opposite parties enhanced the cost of house arbitrarily. It is the further case of the complainant that before enhancement of the cost of the house, it was not informed to him nor his consent was taken.  So, he filed the C.D. case before the State Commission.  In the written version opposite parties contended that the provisional sale price of the house was fixed at Rs.3,16,082/- with plinth area of 671 sqft.  As per the approved building drawing, the plinth area was enhanced to 887 sqft. It was intended to construct the balance of 216 sqft. collecting the entire cost from the allottee.  The cost of 216 sqft being Rs.94,125/-, the total provisional sale price of the house came to Rs.4,10,207/-.The State Commission vide its order dated 17.5.1996 directed the opposite parties to give the complainant delivery of possession of the house on 10.6.1996 at 11 A.M. and both the parties were directed to remain present at the site at the time of delivery of possession.  This order of the State Commission was later modified on 11.6.1996 added to the order dated 17.5.1996 that the cost of the house as would be mentioned in the agreement would be subject to the result of this proceeding and directed that non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.3/-for the purpose of execution of the agreement.  Accordingly, on the order of the State Commission the agreement was registered.  On 24.6.1996 complainant executed the agreement with O.S.H.B. The final cost of the house was fixed at Rs.5,89,650/- and the possession was delivered. 

3.      The State Commission vide its order dated 31.07.2015 finally dismissed the complaint.

4.      Hence the present appeal.

5.      Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the possession was promised to be given in the year 1994, but the same was given in the year 1996 and that too after the intervention of the State Commission.  Hence, there is a clear case for awarding the interest on the deposited amount for the period of delay in handing over the possession.  The State Commission has clearly erred on this score.  Learned counsel also pointed out that the State Commission has wrongly referred to the reply of opposite party in some other case and the opposite party has not filed any written reply in the instant case before the State Commission.  Hence the averments made in the complaint should have been accepted by the State Commission.

7.      I have carefully perused the records and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. On the issue of written version of the OPs, it is observed that the order of the State Commission mentions that one Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3 namely, M/s. S.Mishra & Associates appeared in the case.  The State Commission in its judgment has nowhere mentioned that the written statement was not filed by the opposite parties, rather it is clearly mentioned that “in the written version opposite parties contended that the provisional sale price of the house was fixed at Rs.3,16,082/- with plinth area of 671 sqft.  As per the approved building drawing, the plinth area was enhanced to 887 sqft. It was intended to construct the balance of 216 sqft. collecting the entire cost from the allottee.  The cost of 216 sqft being Rs.94,125/-, the total provisional sale price of the house came to Rs.4,10,207/-.”

8.      It is possible that the State Commission may have allowed the adoption of the written version filed in some similar complaint.  Be it as it may, all the issues raised by the opposite party have been considered by the State Commission. Facts recorded by the State Commission as averments of the written version of the OPs have not been denied in the appeal. The complainant has not specifically stated that any prejudice has been caused to the complainant on this account.

9.      It is admitted fact that the possession of the plot was given after registering the agreement signed by both the parties in the year 1996.  The State Commission has clearly found that the delay in completion of the construction has been due to non-supply of electricity by the Paradeep Port and some other factors not in the hands of the opposite party.  In essence these may be termed as force majeure for which no penalty can be fastened to the opposite party.  The State Commission in its order dated 31.7.2015 has finally dismissed the complaint as under:

                   “With regard to claim of interest, admittedly the subject house was given delivery of possession to the complainant in the year 1996 which ought to have been given in the year 1994.  There was delay in delivery of possession of the house because the Paradeep Port Trust did not supply electricity for construction work.  Further, due to heavy rain water accumulated through creek in the Project and the piling work of the foundation of the house could not be executed.  Furthermore, there was frequent stoppage of work by the Port Authority for want of sanctioned plan.  So, the delay in delivering possession of the house was not due to deficiency of service of the opposite parties.  Moreover, the complainant is enjoying the house since 1996 without making payment of the full cost thereof.  So we are not inclined to award any interest on the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties.

                   Under such premises, the C.D. case stands dismissed.  However, if the complainant is paying electricity and water charges on commercial basis even though he is using the same personally as a domestic consumer, he may apply to the appropriate authority to reduce the same.”

10.    From the above observation of the State Commission, it is clear that the complainant is enjoying the possession since 1996 and that too without paying the full cost in respect of the house.  In these circumstances, no deficiency can be attributed to the opposite party.

11.    Based on the above discussions, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant.  The order of the State Commission dated 31.07.2015 is based on the correct appreciation of facts, evidence and law.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.