HARENDRA Vs. M P GRIH NIRMAN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been placed by the petitioner not being satisfied by the order of the State Commission.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased a house from the respondent Board under House Purchase Scheme for a consideration of Rs. 85,000/-, but final cost was worked out to Rs. 1,04,761/-. With regard to this the petitioner approached the District Forum for directing the respondent Board to refund the excess amount, removal of defects in the construction and construction of boundary wall and payment of compensation. The District Forum after hearing both the persons ordered the respondent Board to construct boundary wall and gate for the complainant's house, removal of defects, compensation of Rs. 500/- and costs of Rs. 200/-. The main demand of the complainant for refund of excess amount was not agreed to by the District Forum as the respondent had a right to charge enhanced price within the terms and conditions of this purpose as the original plan was only a provisional one. Against this an appeal being filed by the petitioner, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum on the two reliefs granted i.e. construction of wall and removal of defects and awarded cost escalation upto 20% of the original cost given out by the respondent to the complainant. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed a revision petition praying for restricting the cost escalation to 10% of the estimated cost, carry out the requisite repairs and construct the wall and the gate plus compensation and costs.

(3.) It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the cost of the escalation be restricted to 10% of the estimated price communicated to him. State Commission has erred in awarding the cost escalation of 20%. We have seen the order of the State Commission and find that the State Commission did consider both the view, i.e. 10% cost escalation as prayed by the complainant or 20% as argued by the respondent. Our reading of the order passed by the State Commission leaves us with the impression that 20% cost escalation was acceptable to the complainant. Hindi version of the order (in original form) makes this point quite clear and it is in continuation of these wordings, that the State Commission goes on to permit 20% cost escalation the construction price of this house communicated to the complainant. The total cost thus payable shall be finalised after adjusting for the interest @ 10% from the day of the deposit in favour of the complaint. We find no illegality or irregularity in the order of the State Commission to exercise our jurisdiction in this case. Revision Petition is dismissed. No orders on costs. Revision Petition dismissed.