AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision has been filed by the complainant challenging the order of the State Commission in appeal No. 3861/2010 filed by the respondent challenging the order of the District Forum dated 7.8.2010 in complaint No.2967/2009 of the petitioner.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a builder and developer and has entered into an agreement of sale and construction on 25.4.2006 with the petitioner whereby the petitioner was sold flat No.102, Tulip Block Rakesh Fantasy Garden Apartments, 2nd Main BDA Road, Kasturi Nagar Indiranagar, Bangalore. Flat was consisting of three bedrooms and double car parking space alongwtih proportionate share in common areas in the multistoried building known as Rakesh Fantasy Garden. The due date of handing over of the possession was 30th October, 2006 and on default the penalty of Rs.2,000/- per month payable by the respondent. The possession was given after much delay in the year 2008 to the petitioner and the petitioner filed the complaint in the year 2009 raising certain deficiencies on the part of the respondent. The claim was contested by the respondent on several counts. The parties led their evidences and on the basis of evidences of the parties and after hearing the arguments of the parties the District Forum passed the following order: -
"I. The complaint is allowed in part.
The OP is directed to furnish to the complainants the details of the MIS charges received from all the apartment owners, and the amounts paid to the Government.
The OP also render account with respect to all the money received under the heads of maintenance charges from all the apartment owners and the details of the maintenance expenditure made by it to the complainant.
The OP is also directed to provide to the complainants the occupation certificate obtained from the Government Authorities.
The OP is also directed to pay to the complainants Rs.6,800/- towards delay in delivering the flat.
The OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the complainant.
The OP shall comply with these order within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order and shall submit the compliance report to this Forum within 75 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 07th Day of August, 2010."
This order was impugned by the respondent before the State Commission. The State Commission after rehearing the matter and perusing the evidences on record modified the order of the District Forum on a limited point. The State Commission issued the following directions: -
"Appeal is allowed in part. The order passed by the DF is modified directing the appellant/opposite party to pay Rs.2,800/- to the respondents/complainants towards delay in delivering the flat.
In so far as relief granted by the DF to provide to the complainants the occupation certificate obtained from the Government Authorities is concerned, is set aside. But however appellant/opposite party is directed to move the concerned authorities to secure the present officer to inspect the flat which are in possession of the respondents and other apartment owners in modification or alteration made b them by violating the sanctioned plan and thereafter to provide occupancy certificate to the respondents/complainants.
In all other aspects the order passed by the DF is undisturbed.
The appellant/opposite party shall comply the order within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
The amount deposited by the appellant/OP shall be transferred to the DF to enable the DF to pay the same to the respondent/complainant after due notice to him."
Aggrieved by the impugned order the present revision petition has been filed by the complainants. It is argued that without any valid reason the State Commission vide its impugned order had reduced the penalty amount granted by the District Forum from Rs.6800/- to Rs.2800/-. It is argued that this order is liable to be set aside since it is not based on any cogent reasons and has no merit. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that there is no illegality in this part of the order and this order should be maintained.
We have given thoughtful consideration to this aspect. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is apparent that there is a concurrent finding of Fora below that there is a delay in handing over of the possession of the property and also the OC has not been applied for by the respondent till 28th November, 2016 and therefore it is apparent that the complainants/petitioners had suffered on this count and it is a gross deficiency on the part of the respondent. The State Commission in the impugned order has not given any reason for such reduction in the compensation amount awarded towards delay in delivery of the flat. We, therefore, set aside the impugned direction and it is hereby directed that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.6800/- towards delay in delivering the flat as directed by the District Forum. The next direction which the petitioner is aggrieved of is regarding the direction whereby the petitioners were directed to allow the concerned officers to inspect the property for granting of OC. The petitioner has failed to point out that such a direction is against the procedural law or any law of the land. The authority is required under the law to inspect the property for which it has to issue occupancy certificate. For that purpose they have to do the inspection of the entire building including the individual flats and the said direction cannot be said to be unjust. This direction is therefore maintained. It is also directed that the concerned authority shall take appropriate steps towards granting of the OC. Petitioner states that the cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed on 23rd January, 2019 has not been paid. The cost can be recovered by the petitioner in the execution petition which he may file before the District Forum.
The revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.