A VELANGANNI Vs. S RAJAGOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the appellant has felt aggrieved on the original order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu. The appellant is a builder and developer. He had acquired a site for constructing flats and had entered into agreements with the various intending flat buyers. The amount was to be received in phased manner and construction to be financed out of it. The flat buyers were to contribute a proportionate part towards proportionate share in the land underneath. Since the work was not being completed within the time and the progress was very slow in spite of the fact that certain excess payments had already reached the builder, the flat buyers filed complaints before the State Commission. The State Commission appointed a Commissioner who with the assistance of a Civil Engineer went into the matter and returned a finding that around 50% of the work had been done in most of the flats while in some, more than 50% has been done. The Commissioner went into various details and made his own assessment of the value of the work done. With the result, it came to light that substantial overpayment had been made. However, the builder filed its objections to the report of the Commissioner. But, apparently, in the main order those objections have not been considered. According to the appellant considerable loss has resulted as a consequence of such omission to consider his objections. At the hearing none has appeared to assist us on behalf of the respondents. We have gone into the various points of objections and discovered that some of the objections are well founded which the State Commission ought to have taken into consideration while awarding the refund of the amount. Just to cite a few examples, the land-filling with earth in the basement is always on cubic feet basis when the basis adopted is sq.ft. Similarly, estimates of the engineers were 4 inch bore-well has been given at Rs. 10,000/- for a 6" diameter Commissioner has estimated at Rs. 7,500/-. The Commissioner has estimated the cost of water proofing at Rs. 25 ps. per sq.ft. which prima facie appears to be grossly undervalued. No quotations of such proofing at 25 ps. are available on the file. And, there are some other which need to be considered.

(2.) IN the result, while we uphold Clause (i) of the final order passed by the State Commission, we set aside the rest of the order assessing the amounts refundable to each party and remand the case back to the State Commission for redetermining the amounts in the light of what is observed hereinabove. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. First Appeal Nos. 656, 657, 658, 659 and 660 of 1994 :