1.       This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 26.03.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 225 of 2017.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant builder co. and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 complainant. No one appears for the respondent no. 2 broker. We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 26.03.2019 of the State Commission, the memorandum of appeal and the application for condonation of delay.

3.       The matter relates to a builder-buyer dispute. The State Commission has ordered the builder co. (the opposite parties no. 1 and no. 2 therein) to refund the sum of Rs.32,86,887/- paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and the broker (the opposite party no. 3 therein) to refund the sum of Rs.12,15,000/- paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum within three months. It has also stipulated that the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 18% per annum in case of default in making payment within the stipulated period of three months. Additionally it has awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony and harassment as also Rs. 21,000/- as cost of litigation.

The builder co. has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. The broker has not agitated the Order of the State Commission. 

4.       A perusal of the State Commission’s Order of 26.03.2019 shows, prima facie, that it is a well-appraised and reasoned order that has aptly dealt with the issues germane to the dispute (paras 8 and 9 specifically refer). It is manifestly evinced that the possession of the subject unit was not delivered to the complainant within the agreed and assured period of 36 months, or even in the 06 month further grace period, and even still within reasonable period thence (reasonable period here would connote a period which appears reasonable per se and which a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would not normally agitate), nor was there any promising projection or assurance forthcoming to deliver possession in the near foreseeable future. On the face of it we do not notice any misappreciation of the facts or misapplication of the law. The award also appears to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.       Vide this Commission’s Order dated 07.08.2019 notice was issued limited to the question of awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and on the application for condonation of delay only.

Learned counsel for the builder co. fairly admits that the said Order of 07.08.2019 has not been put to review or challenge.

As such the only issues under consideration in this appeal are the aspects of delay and lumpsum compensation.

6.       Regarding the first issue, in the interest of justice, considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, in order to provide fair opportunity to the appellant builder co., and to decide the matter on substance rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the self-admitted delay of 75 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

7.       Regarding the second issue, the learned counsel for the complainant submits, on instructions, that the complainant is willing to accept a sum of Rs.50,000/- rather than Rs. 1,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the builder co. submits, on instructions, that it will pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

In the wake of the above submissions, this question is accordingly decided on consent.

8.       As such the appeal is disposed of with the directions that the lumpsum compensation awarded by the State commission shall be Rs.50,000/- in place of Rs.1,00,000/-. The rest of the award made by the State Commission shall remain undisturbed. The award made by the State Commission, as partially modified herein in respect of lumpsum compensation alone, shall be complied with in its entirety within six weeks from today, failing which the State Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.

This Order has been made on consent. As such the decision in this case shall not be treated as a precedent.  

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.