BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. GOPAL KRISHNA PATTNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where complaint filed by the respondent before us, was allowed. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant with a view to purchase a shop-cum-residence in a complex being developed/built by the appellant-Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) applied for it, deposited an amount of Rs. 1,74,600/- on 11.9.1996 upon which a shop-cum-residence House No. SCR 123 was allotted. Some more money was deposited by 2.4.1997 and rest was to be paid in instalments. First instalment was paid but when the appellant did not hand over the possession of the shop-cum-residence (SCR) a complaint was filed before the State Commission by a nominee of the complainant-one Mrs. Jyotirmayee Das. The State Commission after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to handover possession of SCR 123 and further directing BDA to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of deposits till 4.9.2001, i.e., the date when the State Commission visited the site and found it free from all the impediments/obstacles by way of unauthorised constructions, along with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and allowing the appellant to charge the remainder/outstanding amount from the complainant as per rules.

(3.) The opposite party aggrieved by this order has filed the appeal on the ground that it was the complainant who was not taking the possession, as also the fact that the appellant is not required to deal with the unauthorised constructions, if any, which are not coming in the way of the complainant. The complainant had signed the agreement with the appellant after visiting the site, hence no ground to agitate later about any deficiency in services on the ground of any obstruction. The State Commission was not correct in granting interest @ 12% p.a.