For the Petitioners : Mr. Narottam Vyas, Advocate For Mr. Badridas Sharma, AdvocateFor the Respondent : N E M O

Dated, the 14th day of July, 2010

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.09 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 1083/08 titled as Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. Vs. Padmaram and appeal no. 1085/08 titled as Padmaram Vs. Resident Engineer, ..2.. Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr., the opposite party, Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board has filed this petition purportedly u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. We have heard Mr. Narottam Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner Board but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent/complainant as he remained unrepresented on record despite due service of notice in these proceedings. The consumer dispute raised before the District Forum related to non-delivery of possession of a LIG Flat to the complainant’s father who had got registered himself in the scheme in the year 1994 and was allotted a LIG flat on hire purchase basis but failed to deposit the initial payment of 50,992/- as was demanded from him in December 1994. However, on a subsequent demand made by the Board, he promptly paid the amount but still the possession was not handed over to him and it was in the year 1997 that a fresh demand of Rs.17,505/- was made. However, it is not disputed that on receipt of the said amount and completion of the requisite formalities, the possession of the said flat was handed over to the respondent. 3. On consideration of the matter, the District Forum passed the following order:- ..3.. “ As a result, complaint of the complainant is allowed and it is ordered that the respondents shall deliver possession of the H.No.1/259 to the petitioner within a period of one month from today and shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner for mental harassment and a sum of Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation. The petitioner shall within a period of one month give reply to the disputed letter dated 12.03.97 to the respondent no.2 and the respondents shall take a decision according to law on the said reply.” 4. Aggrieved by the said order, both sides the complainant as well as the petitioner Housing Board, filed appeals before the State Commission. By the impugned order, the State Commission has slightly modified the order of the District Forum and gave the following directions:- i) This part of the impugned order of the District Forum that:- “The applicant will submit the reply of the disputed letter dated 12.03.97 before the opposite party no.2 and opposite parties will take decision thereon in accordance with law” is quashed. ii) That the Housing Board – respondents will pay the amount of Rs.17,505/- deposited by the complainant – Gopaldana in compliance of letter dated 12.3.97 under protest on 18.12.08 ..4.. to the complainant – Gopaldana within a period of one month. iii) That the impugned order dated 7.5.08 of the District Forum, Sirohi is amended as above and the rest order is confirmed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to assail the said order so far as it directs the Board to refund the amount of Rs.17,505/- and had maintained the order of the District Forum in regard of payment of compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. In this connection, we may simply observe that as per the petitioner Board’s own showing as reflected in the revision petition at page “J”, the amount of Rs.17,505/- has been wrongly worked out and assuming that the Petitioner Board was entitled to recover the amount on account of interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.04.94 to 28, 09.95, penalty and fees for renewal, the payable amount on these three counts comes to Rs.12,046/- and not Rs.17,505/- . In these circumstances, we are inclined to modify the order of the State Commission to the extent that the petitioner Board is liable to refund only a sum of Rs.12,046/- and not Rs.17,505/- as directed by the State Commission. We order accordingly. So far as award of compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/- is ..5.. concerned, we are of the view that a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The revision petition is disposed of in above terms.