Heard learned counsel for the both the sides.

2.      In course of argument, one  affidavit has been filed by the appellant in compliance of the order dated 30.11.202 passed by this Commission.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the appellant  has floated  a Scheme to sell houses at Ananta Vihar Housing Project of the BDA at Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar and the complainant has applied for one flat for the cost of Rs. 8,30,000/- . It was very much clear from the brochure that the possession of the house would be given within 12 months from the provisional allotment. The provisional allotment was given on 10.12005 but the house was delivered on 18.4.2007. The complainant alleged inter alia that due to delay in delivering the possession of the house, she is entitled interest on the amount deposited. He has also alleged that no water supply was given to the house although there was a condition in the brochure that water supply will be  supplied by the appellant or in the alternative the complainant has prayed that Rs.60,000/- should be paid to the complainant.

4.      The opposite party has taken the plea in his written version that the infrastructure on the site could not be completed due to land dispute. So far as the  water supply is concerned due to  agitation by the local people, the water supply could not be done. However, the appellant gave the water supply temporarily from the existing bore well.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the District Forum passed the following order:-

“In the result, the complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10000/- for delay in giving delivery of possession of the hose in question and temporary pipe connection for supply of water be given till permanent pipe connection is provided to the house. The aforesaid payment made within two months from the date of communication of the order failing which the O.P. shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs. 10000/-….” 

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the opposite party has admitted to have delivered the house in delay. In the instant circumstances the opposite party has filed an affidavit today and draw our attention to the facts mentioned in the same and as such, he submitted that  the impugned order should be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has served a copy of the affidavit filed today on the learned counsel for the complainant. He also submitted that in view of the affidavit filed today, necessary order may be passed by this Commission. It is revealed that the pipeline laid out for water supply to the Project Area was damaged by the agencies deployed by  the Executive Engineer, R & B Division-III during widening of the road. Hence we are of the view that the appellant has tried their best to give  delivery of possession of the house and water supply to the house.

7.      In view of the above, we are satisfied that the plea of the appellant has been well proved and under the circumstances, we hereby set aside the impugned order dated 1.9.2008 and allowed the appeal.

          The appeal is accordingly disposed of.