VIJAYA R. PENKAR vs VISHWANATH SANJEEV SHETTY & ORS.

We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant vehemently argued that the order rendered by the State Commission is inadequate. It was argued that the relief given by the District Forum should be restored. The attention of this Commission was invited towards Clause 5 of the Agreement entered into between the parties, wherein it was unequivocally stated that if the owners are unable to give the possession of the said bungalow with plot within time mentioned therein, they would also liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the received amount. There was huge delay in handing over the possession of the premises in dispute. Most of the works were incomplete. The local commissioner also confirmed that the most of the works were incomplete. Moreover, the possession has not yet been delivered till now.

All these arguments lack conviction. It is apparent that the State Commission has taken care of each and every grievance. The order of the State Commission must be read holistically and not in vacua to the benefit of one and to the detriment of another. The State Commission has already directed that possession of the Bungalow within one month, free from all defects be given to the complainants after the receipt of balance considerations of Rs.56,250/-. The State Commission has further directed that if the possession is not given within one month, the penalty of Rs.1,000/- per day, till the order is complied with, stands imposed. The State Commission also awarded Rs.50,000/- as costs. The total consideration of bungalow is in the sum of Rs.11,25,000/-, out of which part payment is yet to be made. It is true that the OPs have committed an egregious mistake in not handing over the possession of the flat in time for which they have been adequately punished.

The Commission has to take a down to earth view. The Commission is bound to approach the problem more gingerly and realistically. The petitioner wants to have benefit of both the worlds. The petitioner wants to have the house free of cost. The complainant is tingering with useless contentions. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has no bone to pluck with the respondents. She has been adequately awarded and therefore, the Revision Petition is hereby dismissed.