AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. SANJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the O.P. before the District Forum where on a complaint filed by the respondent/complainant the complaint was allowed and then an appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted a shop-cum-flat purchased through an open auction held on 5.10.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 8.61 lakhs. After paying 25% of the amount, the possession of the site was to be given within 30 days and rest of the amount was to be paid in five half yearly instalments with rate of interest @ 12% p.a. By 25.11.1995 the complainant had deposited 25% but possession was not delivered. In the meantime the complainant asked the petitioner to provide basic amenities like approach road, drainage and sewage. The complainant paid all the instalments except the last in spite of not getting the possession. Yet when he did not get possession and amenities were not provided, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, where in spite of repeated notices, petitioner remained absent, hence proceeded ex parte. After perusing the material on record and hearing the arguments the District Forum directed the petitioner to deliver the possession within two months, complete the works and provide the amenities within 6 months and cost of Rs. 1,000/- and also directed the petitioner to not to charge interest on the last instalment. On two separate appeals filed by the petitioner and the complainant, the State Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and further cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the appeal filed by the complainant and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Hence this petition.

(3.) BE that as it may we see that two changes have taken place since then, one, Amendment in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to include "housing construction" under Section 2(1)(o) and secondly the examination of whole case of 'Housing' by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) = (1994) 1 SCC 243. In this judgment after quoting the above mentioned provision Section 2(1)(o) observed that :