J&K HOUSING BOARD Vs. ROMESH CHANDER GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Jammu and Kashmir Housing Board has been called upon to compensate the complainant -respondent who had preferred a complaint before the State Commission constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act. A finding stands recorded that the appellant Board did not complete the construction of the flat and the same was not made habitable. It was stated that there was delay in the matter of completing the construction and handing over the possession. Accordingly compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ - has been allowed to the complainant. An amount of Rs. 5,000/ - has also been allowed as litigation expenses. In case of non -payment within a period of 30 days, the complainant was held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent. It is this order, which is subject -matter of challenge in this appeal.

(2.) THE facts as projected in the complaint and the material which came before the Commission be noticed. In response to an advertisement notice issued by the appellant -Board, applications for allotment of residential flat was submitted by the respondent -complainant on 14th February, 1998. The complainant was informed that a flat would be allotted at a tentative cost of Rs. 6,61,500/ -. The accommodation which was to be allotted was on the ground floor. There was a stipulation that if there is delay in the matter of depositing the cost in terms of the Schedule indicated in this regard, then interest at the rate of 18 per cent would be charged for all delayed instalments to be paid by the complainant. The complainant signed the agreement on 23rd March, 1998. The penal clause, which was the part of agreement is to the following effect :

(3.) THE communication in this regard is placed on record as Annexure H. According to the respondent and as per averments made in para 9 of the complaint, he was informed that the possession of flat cannot be handed over as there is no approach road for the vehicle to reach to the flat. According to the respondent complainant, even sanitary fittings were not in existence. The main holes were uncovered. There was no facility of water. With a view to demonstrate that these facilities were not available, the complainant placed on record the photographs Annexure H1 to Annexure H10. The fact that the main holes were not complete is sought to be demonstrated from Annexure H1. This photograph does show that the man -holes are not covered and as a matter of fact, the complainant is standing in one of the open man -hole. The other photographs also do demonstrate that though civil construction was complete to some extent but then it was not possible to occupy the flat on account of the fact that sanitary fittings were not there and even water facility was not available. According to the complainant he had been approaching the appellant Board but no steps were taken to complete the flat in all respects. The communications which were written in this regard are Annexures J, K, L and M. In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that he made full and final payment and wherever there was default on his part, he was burdened with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. It is in these circumstances submitted that the appellant Board was equally bound by the terms and conditions and in case it was unable to fulfil its commitment, then, it was bound to compensate the complainant.