Sukla Bhaduri vs Estate Officer Chhattisgarh Housing Board

A. P. Sahi, President Member

Heard learned counsel for the appellants/complainants.

In all these three appeals the order under challenge is dated 05.08.2016 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission).  The appellants/complainants had filed the complaints for various reliefs but while finally allowing the complaints, only some of the reliefs were granted by the State Commission which are to the following effect:

“31.  Therefore complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and non-applicant is directed that:-

A.   To return the amount of Rs.69,771/- (Sixty nine thousand seven hundred seventy one) received from the complainant for service tax, colony transfer fee, surcharge etc. to her within 01 month from the date of order.

B.   Non-applicant shall also pay interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs.69,771/- (Sixty nine thousand seven hundred seventy one) from the date when complainant deposit the said amount with the non-applicant till the date of realization.

C.   Other relief of the complainant is dismissed.

D.  Non-applicant shall pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the complainant as cost of suit.”

The present appeals have been filed praying that the impugned order passed by the State Commission insofar as it relates to denial of compensation is inappropriate and therefore a prayer has been made to enhance the compensation awarded by the State Commission.

From a perusal of the reliefs granted by the State Commission, there does not appear to be any relief extended with regard to compensation and therefore the question of any enhancement over and above the same does not arise.  In essence, it appears since no compensation has been awarded by the State Commission, the present appeals have been filed for award of compensation.

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Chhattisgarh Housing Board (the respondent in all the appeals) that a batch of Revision Petitions and Appeals came up with regard to similar reliefs, including that of the issue relating to charging of service tax.  The said batch came to be disposed of finally on 20.03.2017 in Revision Petition No. 1188 of 2016 and other connected matters.  It was pleaded in those cases that the District Commission had awarded Rs.5.00 Lakhs as compensation but the State Commission had erroneously set it aside.  This Commission, however, came to the conclusion that keeping in view the negligence, irregularities and the deficiencies on the part of the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, a reasonable compensation of Rs.1.00 Lakh with costs of Rs.25,000/- deserves to be awarded in those cases.  A copy of the said order is available on the internet and has been downloaded and perused by me.

The orders dated 05.08.2016 impugned in the present appeals also came to be challenged in a batch of Revision Petitions and Appeals (Revision Petition No. 2709 of 2016 and other connected matters) by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board that came to be decided on 19.07.2017.  A copy of the order passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 2709 of 2016 connected with other Revision Petitions and First Appeals has been placed on record along with the written synopsis of the Chhattisgarh Housing Board.

This order dated 19.07.2017, even though notices the issues with regard to compensation etc. but since the Housing Board was only pressing its relief insofar as service tax was concerned, the batch of the said Revision Petitions and Appeals were disposed of affirming the orders of the District Commission and the State Commission directing refund of service tax to the complainants as it could not be charged or realised.

However, while doing so the, the order passed in Revision Petition No. 1188 of 2016 and other connected cases was also noticed.

The present appeals have been filed by the appellants/complainants seeking relief of compensation that has been declined by the State Commission.  In the opinion of this Commission, the order dated 19.07.2017 disposing of the aforesaid batch of Revision Petitions and Appeals filed by the Housing Board does not in away affect the rights of the present appellants/complainants to press these appeals even though they were respondents in the said connected appeals as the only relief ultimately sought was against the refund of service tax.  The reason is that the issue with regard to compensation was not even agitated and therefore learned counsel for the present appellants/complainants is right in her submission that the judgment in Revision Petition No. 1188 of 2016 and other connected cases decided on 20.03.2017 is now binding on the Chhattisgarh Housing Board.  The said decision awards Rs.1.00 Lakh as compensation to all the complainants without any distinction.  The sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigation costs has also been awarded.

Learned counsel for the present appellants/complainants on the basis of oral instructions received from the clients has stated at the bar that no such relief of Rs.1.00 Lakh as compensation or the costs, as directed to be given to the complainants in Revision Petition No. 1188 of 2016 and other connected cases that were decided on 20.03.2017, has been extended to them.

Learned counsel for the Chhattisgarh Housing Board submits that in case any such payments have not been made to the present appellants/ complainants, then any directions given by this Commission will be abided by.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the limited issue for which the present appeals have been filed, it is obvious that the State Commission has declined to award any compensation and has referred to the circumstances of no profit and no loss basis of the Chhattisgarh Housing Board to be one of the reasons for not awarding compensation.  It is therefore evident that the present appellants/complainants were not only denied compensation but they had also to undertake additional expenses for living on rent and consequently they also expect some compensation on that count as well.

Since this issue of compensation in similar matters has already been finally dealt with by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 1188 of 2016 and other connected cases decided on 20.03.2017, I do not find any reason to differ from the view taken therein or to deny the compensation which has been found to be just and reasonable to the extent of Rs.1.00 Lakh coupled with costs of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainants.  The order passed by this Commission dated 20.03.2017 is extracted herein:-

In the aforenoted case no compensation was awarded as the complainant himself was a defaulter; he did not prove that there was any negligence, short comings or inadequacy on behalf of the Authority; the houses were delivered in 1997 at a price agreed to in 1986. The facts in the instant case are different in the sense that the Chhattisgarh Housing Board has issued revised prices on account of the delay which has been paid by the Complainants under protest; the Complainants were never defaulters and thirdly they were able to establish by way of documentary evidence, namely, the CAG Report that there has been negligence, irregularities and inadequacy on the part of the developing Authority in the performance of their functions, on account of which the Complainant has suffered mental agony.  To reiterate, ‘Pricing’ is not the subject matter here and notice was issued to the limited aspect of Compensation in the Complainant’s Revision Petitions. It is pertinent to note that The Comptroller and Auditor General of India in the year 2013 submitted a detailed Performance Audit Report and observed serious lacunae in the project of the Respondent including flouting of rules and regulations in the project and recommended that the monitoring system should be strengthened to ensure timely completion of projects.  Further, the report gives a detailed account about the awarding of additional work without inviting tender in the project, irregular subletting of work in the project, the excess mobilization advance paid to the contractor and non-recovery of interest, excess payment due to extra excavations and filling of foundations and non-development of adequate number of Engineers in the project. This evidences that the economic irregularities committed by the Housing Board not only affected the Price but also consequentially led to the Delay. It is also an admitted fact that the contractor was given 24 months  deadline and work orders dated 03.10.2008 and 13.10.2008 were issued by the Housing Board for construction of “A” and “B” blocks respectively. Merely saying that time is not specified in the agreement and the Housing Board can take whatever time period is convenient for them to complete the promised amenities, without giving any substantial reasons, is ultra vires of what has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711, and is, therefore, totally unjustified and amounts to unfair trade practice. As can be seen from the record, the Scheme was of the year 2008 and even as on the  date of filing of the Complaint before the District Forum, i.e.,01.05.2015, the developmental works were still incomplete for which a reasonable compensation of ₹1,00,000/- and cost of ₹25,000/- is awarded to each of the Complainants, to which shall meet the ends of justice.

In the result, Revision Petitions (Nos.1188/2016 to 1198/2016, 1217/2016 & 1241/2016) preferred by the Housing Board are dismissed and Revision Petitions (Nos. 1282/2016 to 1294/2016) preferred by the Complainants are allowed in part, modifying the order of the State Commission only to the extent of awarding compensation of ₹1,00,000/- and cost of ₹25,000/- to each of the Complainants for the mental agony, harassment undergone by them on account of the delay and incompletion of basic facilities and development works. This amount is to be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, it shall attract interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the Complaint, till the date of realization.”

Accordingly, adopting the reasoning given by this Commission in the aforesaid order and on the facts of the present appeals, which are not dissimilar to the same, the present appeals are allowed partly to the aforesaid extent by directing the Chhattisgarh Housing Board to pay Rs.1.00 Lakh as compensation to each of the appellants/complainants coupled with Rs.25,000/- as litigation costs.

In the event of failure of the aforesaid payments within four weeks from today, the same shall attract interest @ 9% per annum till the amount is actually paid by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board to the appellants/complainants.

All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.