D. Thiruvateeswaran vs Chief Executive Officer Central Govt. Employees

ALL these revision petitions arise out of a common order of learned State Commission and; hence, decided by a common order.

THESE revision petitions have been filed by the parties against the impugned order dated 5.7.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 813/2011 - The Chief Executive Officer Vs. D. Thiruvatteeswaran and Appeal No. 925/2011 - D. Thiruvatteeswaran Vs. The Chief Executive Officer by which, while allowing appeals partly, order of District Forum was modified. Brief facts of the case are that complainant petitioner was allotted a "D '' " Type flat in Paruttippattu in Poothamamallee - Avadi High Road by the opposite party on 24.2.2006. Complainant was to pay Rs.15,65,000/- as tentative cost of the flat in five instalments. OP was to commence construction in December, 2006 and was to be completed within 30 months. Complainant paid first 4 instalments by March, 2009 as per schedule and further paid Rs.3,46,100/- being 50% of the estimated escalation cost, under protest. On inquiry, OP projected that construction will be completed by May, 2010 and later on apprised that it would be completed by March, 2011. Complainant has paid Rs.16,00,000/-, but still waiting delivery of the possession of the flat. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum and claimed rent @ Rs.16,000/- per month for 20 months, Rs.90,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.70,000/- as interest on paid instalments and Rs.19,000/- as cost of litigation. OP filed written statement and submitted that OP is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, Government of India and works on "no profit no loss basis ". OP renders free service to the Central Government Employees and complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer. It was further alleged that tentative 30 months period for construction was given. It was further submitted that complainant invested money for commercial purpose; hence, complaint be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation within one month, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment. Both the parties filed appeal before learned State Commission and the learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed both the appeals partly and directed OP to handover possession of completed flat within 8 weeks and reduced amount of compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as legal expenses against which, these revision petitions have been filed by the complainant and OP.

HEARD the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OP at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in reducing amount of compensation, rather State Commission should have allowed appeal and enhanced amount of compensation; hence, order of learned State Commission be set aside and amount of compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the OP submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in upholding compensation of Rs.20,000/-, as OP works on "no profit no loss basis "; hence, revision petition be allowed and order directing payment of compensation be set aside. Parties apprised that OP has handed over possession of the flat to the complainant on 13.3.2013. Thus, it becomes clear that order of State Commission directing OP to handover possession has been complied with, though, with a delay of about 6 months. Complainant had not prayed for delivery of possession in the complaint and District Forum had also not directed OP to handover possession, but State Commission directed to handover possession of flat and in consequence to that order, possession has already been handed over to the complainant.

NOW , the question to be decided is; whether the amount of compensation is to be enhanced or reduced or, as ordered by State Commission is to be upheld. Learned District Forum has observed in its order that complainant has not filed any receipt regarding payment of rent and in such circumstances, instead of granting compensation towards rent, granted lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-, which has been reduced to Rs.20,000/- by learned State Commission. Learned Counsel for OP submitted that OP runs on "no profit no loss basis " and in such circumstances, learned State Commission ought not to have granted Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant, whereas learned complainant submitted that instead of reducing amount of compensation, it should have been enhanced. As OP is rendering service on "no profit no loss basis ", as a welfare measure to provide houses to the Central Government employees, we are of the view that compensation awarded by the learned State Commission is reasonable and it need not be enhanced and in such circumstances, Revision Petition No. 4502 of 2012 filed by the complainant/petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

AS far as reduction of compensation awarded by the State Commission is concerned, we do not feel it proper to reduce this amount of compensation because possession of flat has been given to the complainant after 8 months of the impugned order, whereas possession was to be given after 8 weeks. In such circumstances, Revision Petition No. 4941 of 2012 and Revision Petition No.4942 of 2012 filed by the petitioner/OP are liable to be dismissed. Consequently, Revision Petition No. 4502 of 2012 filed by the complainant/petitioner and Revision Petition Nos. 4941 & 4942 of 2012 filed by the OP/petitioner against the impugned order are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.