CHHATTISGARH GRIH NIRMAN MANDAL vs P.V. Ramesh Rao

SH. P.V. Ramesh Rao, the complainant, purchased MIG Delux at Saddu. He deposited a sum of Rs. 1,42,000 towards the registration charges, on 27.10.2005. The tentative price of the House was Rs. 9,48,000. The complainant was to pay first installment in the sum of Rs. 2,01,000, on 30.6.2006, second installment in the sum of Rs. 2,01,000 on 30.9.2006 and third installment in the sum of Rs. 2,01,000 was to be paid on 30.12.2006 and the last installment of Rs. 2,03,000 was to be paid at the time of taking the possession. House No. 86, was allotted in his favour. The complainant has paid all the installments and last installment was not paid as it was to be paid at the time of taking the possession. The complainant paid total amount of Rs. 7,71,229 to Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, the OP/petitioner. However, even the foundation work was not started at the time of filing this complaint, on 20.12.2007. The complainant received letter dated 6.5.2010 from OP, wherein OP demanded Rs. 4,29,066, from the complainant towards escalation. The total amount being Rs. 12,54,439 instead of Rs. 9,48,000. There was delay in constructing the house. Therefore, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, with the following prayer that an amount of Rs. 7,71,229 along with interest @ 18% p.a., be returned. OP had received the entire amount without even beginning the construction of the building. The complainant had to bear the expenses and was in mental agony, always. The letters sent by him were not responded by OP. He claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000 + rent at the rate of Rs. 8,000 p.m., from the date of registration, which comes to Rs. 10,73,330, as well as litigation charges. There is total delay of two years.

IN the written statement, the OP had admitted that there was some delay in the construction work. It is explained that the house was to be constructed under Self -Financing Scheme (SFS). The tenders were called, but due to some reasons, the said construction could not be made as the land in Saddu project was disputed and after settling of the dispute, the construction work started again and hence the construction work was not completed within the stipulated time, as the OP is bound by the directions of the Government. To check the delay in construction, is beyond its control. Again, it was mentioned that price quoted was tentative and the complainant cannot plead ignorance about its escalation. The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered that the complainant is entitled to receive possession of house on payment of Rs. 4,83,210 to the OP. However, OP was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000, to the complainant, towards compensation as also costs in the sum of Rs. 3,000.

IN the First Appeal, filed by the petitioner/OP, the State Commission decided that the complainant shall not be liable to pay Supervision Charges and Architectural fee or any amount. It came to the conclusion that the demand under these two Heads, is totally unjustified. The State Commission also held, as under: The respondent has filed photocopy of demand note dated 26.12.2012. Perusal of said document shows that amount under new Heads has been charged. Learned Counsel for appellant was neither aware of such demand notice nor was able to justify the same. Interest for the period from 1.9.2010 to 31.12.2010 for 28 months, has been claimed as Rs. 97,454 Suraksha Shulk from 1.9.2010 to 31.12.2010, for 25 months has been claimed as Rs. 42,000 has been claimed. In total, Rs. 2,28,310 in addition to the amount of Rs. 12,05,583, already standing to the credit of the complainant, has been demanded by the OP. Such an act on the part of the OP definitely amounts to deficiency in service on their part and we deprecate such practice.

IT also transpired that the petitioner had already paid the amount, as directed by the District Forum. The State Commission ordered that complainant shall be entitled to get the possession of the house on making payment of Rs. 48,089 towards Service Tax. It upheld the direction of the District Forum regarding payment of Rs. 1,00,000, as compensation. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/OP, picked up a conflict with the direction regarding payment of Rs. 1,00,000 only. We find that the orders passed by the Fora below do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and hence affirm the same. Why should anyone take a dollop of injustice from someone else, just because he enjoys the Government power. The first installment was paid in the year 2005. The possession was not given till the year 2010. There was a huge delay in putting the complainant in possession of the premises in dispute. The admission of this fact comes out of the horse''s mouth itself. They have admitted that there was delay in handing over the possession of the premises in dispute. Even if no time was fixed, yet the duty which casts on the Commission is to see, whether there was inordinate delay or reasonable delay. In this case, there is a huge delay. On the one hand, the petitioner is asking for escalation of the amount, and on the other hand, it prays that it should not be made liable to compensate the petitioner, for delay in handing over the possession of the premises in dispute.

It wants to have benefit of both the worlds. The action on the part of the petitioner is arbitrary, capricious and despotic. A Public Servant should behave like Public Servant and not like a Public Master. The revision petition is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.