Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

           None appears for the respondent.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that complainant was provisionally allotted with a standard plot measuring 2400 sqft in Ananta Vihar Scheme, Phase-II at Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar. It is alleged that subsequently the opposite parties through lottery process, allotted the house No.67 situated over the plot in favour of the complainant on 29.9.2005 with a note that the cost of the additional land beyond the standard area of 2400 sqft would be intimated to the complainant later on. Thereafter the complainant visited the plot and the house and noticed some defects in the construction of the same and demarcation of the plot. Hence he moved the opposite parties in his letter under Annexure-3 for necessary rectification. The opposite parties served a letter dated 1.5.2007 to the complainant under Annexure-4 asking him to take physical possession of the house within 30 days. The complainant approached the authorities of the opposite parties for clear demarcation of the land and till then to defer delivery of possession. Later on demarcation was made. Cost the additional land attached to the standard area of 2400 sqft was to be determined and to assess the cost, a Committee was formed. Till assessment of such cost the possession of land and house were not delivered to the complainant.

4.        However, the complainant allegedly made grievance before the opposite party on 6.5.2008 for delivery of possession of land with house thereon along with the additional land attached to the plot for which he gave an undertaking under Annexure-7 having agreed to pay the cost of the additional land subsequently. Then the opposite parties asked the complainant to make deposit of Rs.1,05,482/- for the additional land of 595.94 sqft. the complainant made the deposit on 9.1.2009. Physical delivery of possession of the land and the house were given to the complainant on 13.1.2009. The complainant alleged that the cost of additional land was assessed at R.177/- per sqft. whereas one Jyoshnamayee Behera was allotted with the additional land for the cost at the rate of Rs. 98.14 per sqft, Challenging the discrimination, the complainant has filed the complaint case.

5.        The opposite party filed the written version stating that the complainant was asked to take delivery of possession of core house No.67 in their letter dated 1.5.2007, but the complainant deferred  to take the possession requesting the opposite parties to allot the additional land challenging the plot no.67. In their meeting the Committee took the decision by fixing Rs.177 per sqft as extra land attached to Plot no.67 and the complainant agreed and deposited the money. Thereafter, the core house and the additional land were delivered to the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency on their part.

6.        After hearing the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

            “xxx   xxx   xxx

            In the result, the complaint is allowed on contest, The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs.46.996/- to the complainant. They are further directed to pay compensation for mental agony of Rs. 8000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2000/-. Thus the O.Ps are directed to pay the sum at Rs. 56,996/- to the complainant within one month from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant is at  liberty to recover the same from the O.Ps in accordance with law.”

7.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by passing such impugned order. According to him there is no discrimination between the complainant and Jyoshnamayee Behera, because Jyoshnamayee Behera was allotted extra land on 9.3.2007 with the cost of Rs. 98.14 per sqft whereas the complainant was allotted extra land on 6.1.2009 and amount assessed by the committee of the opposite parties was at Rs. 177- per sqft in total Rs. 1,05,482/-. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts. Apart from that, he submitted that the complainant has given an undertaking to pay the amount of extra land as per the decision of the Committee of the opposite parties. Since the committee of the Authority has decided the rate and the complainant got the possession of the land after two years as per his own volition, the question of discrimination between the complainant and Jyoshnamayee Behera does not arise.  Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.

8.        Considered  the submissions of the parties, perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.        It is admitted fact that the complainant had paid the opposite parties for the allotment of core house for 2400 sqft, but after measurement, it is found that there is some extra land attached to the plot No. 67 for which the complainant had given an undertaking under Annexure-7 by having agreed to pay the cost of the additional land subsequently. It is admitted fact that the complainant has paid Rs. 1,05,482/- as per the commitment for the cost of the extra land. Not only this, but also, it is found  from the document under Annexure-7 that the complainant has agreed to pay the cost of the extra land as determined by the Committee of the opposite parties. The other documents filed by the opposite party show that as per the decision taken by the committee of the Authority, price has been fixed. When the Committee of the opposite parties has fixed the rate complainant at Rs. 177/- per sqft in 2009 whereas the price fixed for Jyoshnamayee Behera in 2007 is at Rs.98.14 per sqft, we do not find any justification to agree with the findings of the learned District Forum.

10.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the decision of the learned District Forum are not  correct in view of the facts stated above and for that, we are  constrained to set aside the impugned order. As such, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed. No cost.

           The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any, on proper identification.                  

 DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.