Though the appeal is listed for final hearing today, an application  under Order  XXIII Rule 4 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been made on behalf of the proposed LRs of the deceased Respondent Mr. Subir Kishan Datta, who is stated to have died on 10^th March, 2009 leaving behind Mrs.                Ella Datta, wife and Ms. Sanjukta Datta, daughter.   Counsel for the Appellant does not wish to file any reply to the application and has no objection if the application is allowed and the proposed LRs are brought on record in place of deceased Respondent – Mr. Subir Kishan Datta.  We order accordingly.  Amended Memo of Parties has been already filed.

                    Aggrieved by the order dated 13^th March, 2006 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (For short ‘State Commission’) in Complaint Case no. 149/1998, the Opposite party – Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. have filed the present appeal.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal and directed the appellant herein to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. One lakh besides cost of Rs.10,000/-, holding the Opposite Party Builder guilty of deficiency in service in not providing certain amenities described in Para 6 of the impugned order.  Besides, the State Commission also observed that the complainant was deprived of the flat, which he had initially booked and another flat was given to him in another block. 

                    We have heard Mr. S.K. Pattjoshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay, learned counsel for the respondents who have been substituted in place of original complainant.  Mr. S.K. Pattjoshi would assail the impugned order on the ground that the complaint before the State Commission itself was not maintainable / entertainable because it was filed belatedly much after the prescribed period of limitation and also on the ground that the findings in regard to deprivation of the complainant of the original booked flat is not factually correct in much as the change in the flat and the block was made, as per the agreement which was made as back as in the year 1992.  On the other hand, counsel for the respondents support the impugned order. 

     Having considered the matter in its entirety and the kind of grievance which the complainant had raised with the appellant builder after entering into the possession of the flat and pursuing the same afterwards, it can not be said that the complaint so filed was barred by limitation because it will deem to give rise to continuous cause of action till the grievance was redressed.

          So far as the other contention is concerned that the change in the flat and block was as per the complainant’s request and not as an act of high handedness on the part of the builder, we find force in his contention.  Therefore, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the State Commission is not commensurate with the nature and extent of the deficiency, which can be said to have been established on the part of the Opposite Party builder.  In our view, it will adequately meet the ends of justice if the compensation awarded by the State Commission is reduced to half i.e. Rs.50,000/- and the cost is also proportionately reduced to Rs.5,000/.  The entire awarded amount has been lying in fixed deposit in this Commission.  We, therefore, direct the registry to disburse half of the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon to the Respondents and the balance amount be refunded to the appellant along with accrued interest.  Registry shall also refund the sum of Rs.30,000/-, which has been deposited as pre condition for filing the case. 

 No order as to cost in these proceedings.