Bhubaneswar Development Authority vs GOPAL KRISHNA PATTNAIK

THE appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where complaint filed by the respondent before us, was allowed. Hence this appeal.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant with a view to purchase a shop-cum-residence in a complex being developed/built by the appellant-Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) applied for it, deposited an amount of Rs. 1,74,600/- on 11.9.1996 upon which a shop-cum-residence House No. SCR 123 was allotted. Some more money was deposited by 2.4.1997 and rest was to be paid in instalments. First instalment was paid but when the appellant did not hand over the possession of the shop-cum-residence (SCR) a complaint was filed before the State Commission by a nominee of the complainant-one Mrs. Jyotirmayee Das. The State Commission after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to handover possession of SCR 123 and further directing BDA to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of deposits till 4.9.2001, i.e., the date when the State Commission visited the site and found it free from all the impediments/obstacles by way of unauthorised constructions, along with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and allowing the appellant to charge the remainder/outstanding amount from the complainant as per rules. The opposite party aggrieved by this order has filed the appeal on the ground that it was the complainant who was not taking the possession, as also the fact that the appellant is not required to deal with the unauthorised constructions, if any, which are not coming in the way of the complainant. The complainant had signed the agreement with the appellant after visiting the site, hence no ground to agitate later about any deficiency in services on the ground of any obstruction. The State Commission was not correct in granting interest @ 12% p.a.

We have seen the material on record and find that it is not disputed that the original complainant had made payments in 1996-1997 for a shop-cum-residence; he was allotted one such SCR change or exchange between SCR 19 and SCR 123, we see is of no consequence. The cost of the SCR was Rs. 4 lakhs if paid in lump-sum or Rs. 4,62,804/- if paid in instalments. Allotment of SCR 123 was made vide letter No. 27.3.1997. First instalment was paid on 26.4.1997. It is not disputed that in and around SCR there were unauthorised constructions, which were removed only a few days before the visit of the State Commission on 14.9.2001. We are somewhat pained to note the stand of the appellant that there is no requirement that the premises should be delivered after clearing all the unauthorised constructions existing at the back side of the premises. To say the least we had expected more fairer and better stand from a public agency, while dealing with all consumers looking for a shelter. We fail to understand how can a public agency permit unauthorised constructions to come up in the first place. We do not wish to comment as to why this is permitted to happen. Deficiency is obvious. For four years, the complainant had to wait for taking possession free of any unauthorised constructions around the SCR allotted to her. The State Commission was quite right in granting interest on the deposited amount for the period that it was lying with BDA. Had the complainant come in appeal we would have considered enhancement of grant of interest @ 18% p.a. Both on the facts and law no error has been committed by the State Commission to call for our interference in the well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission. This appeal is dismissed with costs which we fix at Rs. 2,000/- to be payable to the nominee i.e. Mrs. Jyotirmayee Das by the appellant. Appeal dismissed.