Judgment:
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1) This appeal arises out of order/award dated 30/07/2008 passed in Consumer complaint No.298/2006 Kum.Kamal Baburao Virole V/s. Pimpari Chinchavad New town development Authority and Another by Additional Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Pune (âForum below in short).
2) Appellant/Org.Complainant was allotted a flat having area 371 sq.ft. situated in scheme no.3, sector â 20, Krushna Nagar Housing Scheme, B type for a total consideration of Rs.2,31,875/- by Respondent/Org.O.P.No.1-Pimpari Chinchavad New Town Development Authority (hereinafter referred as âHousing Board). The Complainant has deposited entire purchase price of the flat with Housing Board during the period 20/01/1007 to 13/11/1997. However, she was not given possession of the flat. The possession was ultimately delivered to her after the intervention of the office of the Lok Aayuktta on 17/11/2004. Thereafter this consumer complaint was filed for compensation inter-alia claiming compensation on various counts including compensation for hiring rented premises, compensation for various visits those the Complainant was required to pay to the Housing Board, compensation for compulsory absence of duty for visits to the Housing Board and thereby loosing the daily wages, compensation for mental torture and compensation for delayed possession. Said complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by Org.Complainant.
3) We heard Shri.Anant Dharvatkar, Advocate for appellant and Shri.Santosh Bhise âthe employee representing Respondent No.1. Other Respondents remained absent. Perused the record.
4) Admittedly, entire purchase price of the flat was paid and deposited by the Complainant. Last installment of Rs.2,31,875/- was deposited by the Complainant as per demand letter of the Housing Board dated 23rd August, 1999, in the month of September, 1999 itself. By letter dated 1st October, 1999, the Housing Board raised additional demand of Rs.1,569/- for the delay in making the payment. Complainant by her letter dated 03/11/1999 brought it to the notice of the Housing Board that such demand of Rs.1,569/- was improper since, there was no delay on her part to make the payment. Thereafter, the Housing Board preferred to remain silent and also did not hand over the possession of the flat to the appellant. The demand to produce certificate of Respondent/Org.O.P.No.2-Society as condition precedent to hand over the possession being arbitrary, the Housing Board cannot shield itself behind it to justify delay in handing over the possession. The possession also could not be delayed for want of alleged non payment of Rs1,569/- as delayed payment charges. Thus, the deficiency in service on part of Housing Board on this count is well established and therefore, on that count the Complainant is entitled to compensation as held by the National Commission, New Delhi in the case Vijay Shankar Shukla V/s.Laxmi Development Authority, 1986-99 Consumer 4539(NS). Entire price of Rs.2,31,875/- was paid in the month of September, 2009. The possession was expected to be delivered soon thereafter. However, the possession was actually delivered on 17/11/2004. Therefore, for the period 01/10/1999 to 17/11/2004, the Housing Board is liable to pay compensation by way of interest on the price paid i.e.Rs.2,31,875/-. We find the interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. would just and proper considering the fact that Complainant was without any justification deprived of the possession of her own house, and was required to spend on hired premises.
5) The correspondence between the parties exhibits attitude of the Housing Board Authorities showing no concern for a flat allottee/ the Complainant who is a common-man coming from lower income group. Therefore, for the mental and physical torcher which the Complainant has undergone, we find Rs.10,000/- would be the just and proper amount of compensation in addition to the interest on the price paid awarded as compensation. We also thought it fit to award cost of the proceedings as final order below.
6) As far as of the other monitory claims are concerned, we find Forum below rightly held that they can not be awarded for want of necessary particulars and evidence.
7) As far as Respondent/Org.O.P.No.2-Society is concerned, there can not be any deficiency in service on part of it for which a compensation could be claimed.
8) For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:
Order:
1) Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned order of dismissal of the consumer complaint stands set aside.
2) Respondent/Org.O.P.No.1- Pimpari Chinchavad New Town Development Authority do pay interest @ 18 % p.a. over an amount of Rs.2,31,875/- for the period 01/10/1999 to 17/11/2004 to the Appellant/Org. Complainant.
The amount shall be paid within 45 days from the receipt of this order and failing which it shall carry future interest @ 24% p.a.
3) Respondent/Org.O.P.No.1- Pimpari Chinchavad New Town Development Authority shall also pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Appellant/Org. Complainant. The amount shall be paid within 45 days from the receipt of this order and failing which it shall carry future interest @ 24% p.a.
4) Respondent/Org.O.P.No.1- Pimpari Chinchavad New Down Development Authority shall bear its own cost and pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to Appellant/Org.Complainant.
5) The consumer complaint as against other Respondent/Org.O.P.No.2 to 4 stands dismissed.
6) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.