CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL, ROURKELA vs ROURKELA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THESE two sets of appeals have been filed by both the parties before the State Commission.

BRIEF facts leading to filing of complaint by Consumer Protection Council (CPC), Rourkela was that on a housing scheme floated by Rourkela Development Authority (RDA), a large number of applications was made. As per the terms and conditions in the brochure, the construction was to be completed in two years. The exact wording used in the brochure is "the project period is two years". As per one of the letters on record, the construction was to be completed in March, 1991 (page 141 of paper book before us). There was delay in completion of the work and when the work was completed it was found to be deficient in certain respects, especially, with respect to provision of the basic infrastructure like water, sewage, road, etc. It is in these circumstances that a complaint came to be filed by the State Commission who decided to appoint a Committee to look into the short-comings pointed out by the complainants. This order was challenged before the National Commission who remanded the matter to be decided by the State Commission. The State Commission in the second round of litigation, after hearing the parties and after examining the report of the Local Commissioners appointed by the State Commission passed the following order: (i) Each of the complainants should be paid Rs. 3,960/-. (ii) All the defects mentioned above in each of the cases should be removed within four months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainants are free to proceed against the authorities as available under law."

Not being satisfied with the reliefs given/aggrieved by this order, both the parties have filed the appeals before us. We heard the parties at length and perused the material on record. Since both the appeals emanate from the same order, we go on to pass a single order on both the appeals filed before us.

There is no dispute about the authenticity of the report of the Local Commissioners appointed by the State Commission. It is the case of the appellant, C.P.C., that the State Commission had no justification whatsoever to reduce the recommended amount of Rs. 7,410/- in each case, to Rs. 3,960/- as ordered by the State Commission. They have also not taken into consideration the provision of basic infrastructure and have also not granted any interest on the deposited amount as well as the compensation for attempt to pass over a defective house on the part of the Public Authority like the respondent, R.D.A.

AFTER going through the material on record, we find that the State Commission had no ground whatsoever to reduce the quantum of assistance with regard to overhead tank after this having been established that instead of providing an overhead tank of 2000 ltr. capacity what was given was tank of 1000 ltr. capacity. This is a deviation from the contract and hence in our view the complainants are entitled to this amount and State Commission erred in going about in circles to state that this tank of 1000 ltr. capacity is enough. This was not the case in point. The moot point was whether the R.D.A. had adhered to the items agreed to between the parties or not. In this case, the Local Commissioners found this to be a discrepancy and for which they recommended Rs. 3,500/-. State Commission arbitrarily reduced it to Rs. 1,000/-, which is not in order. We restore this to Rs. 3,500/- as recommended by the Local Commissioners. The other two items for which compensation was recommended by the Local Commissioners but not agreed to by the State Commission, in our view rightly, relate to boundary wall, hand rail/parapet on staircase. The admitted position is that they were not part of the original specifications/drawings. We are not inclined to grant these two recommendations for the same reason as given out by the State Commission. In result, each of the complainants shall be entitled to Rs. 6,460/- instead of Rs. 3,960/- as directed by the State Commission.

THERE is no dispute that certain amounts were paid by the complainant to R.D.A., but possession of the building has not been given till date. We do not accept the plea of the R.D.A. that possessions were offered. In our view, offering of possession of an incomplete house is no offer. Rourkela Development Authority is directed to pay interest on the deposited amount to each of the complainants @ 12% p.a. from the respective date of deposits till the date of handing over the possession after removing defects as directed by the State Commission, based on the report of the Local Commissioner. We see no merit in the other two points raised by the complainants in view of findings of the Local Commissioners that roads do exist, sewage system is also in place and the water supply system is also in place, what is suggested is the additional pumping by R.D.A. It has to be seen in perspective that as per brochure these basic features were expected to be provided by the Government. However, as a good gesture R.D.A. would like to supplement the water supply by additional pumping. As far as the Appeals (FA 89-99/1999) filed by R.D.A. are concerned, these are with regard to recovery of enhanced price. That was not the issue before the State Commission and State Commission has passed no order in that regard. They may do so as per law on the subject. Since this was not the issue before the State Commission, we refrain from passing any order on this point. Only a meek effort is made by R.D.A to indirectly and obliquely challenge the recommendations of the Joint Commissioners as also their by raising plea that construction was completed but there was a deliberate refusal on the part of the complainants as they were not willing to pay the escalated price. We see no merit in these grounds in view of our above discussion.

IN the result, appeals filed by the R.D.A., Rourkela are dismissed. With regard to the appeals filed by the C.P.C., Rourkela, these appeals are partly allowed in above terms. Parties to bear their own costs. First Appeal Nos. 253-257 of 1998 partly allowed and First Appeal Nos. 89-99 of 1998 dismissed.