CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL ROURKELA Vs. ROURKELA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two sets of appeals have been filed by both the parties before the State Commission.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of complaint by Consumer Protection Council (CPC), Rourkela was that on a housing scheme floated by Rourkela Development Authority (RDA), a large number of applications was made. As per the terms and conditions in the brochure, the construction was to be completed in two years. The exact wording used in the brochure is "the project period is two years". As per one of the letters on record, the construction was to be completed in March, 1991 (page 141 of paper book before us). There was delay in completion of the work and when the work was completed it was found to be deficient in certain respects, especially, with respect to provision of the basic infrastructure like water, sewage, road, etc. It is in these circumstances that a complaint came to be filed by the State Commission who decided to appoint a Committee to look into the short-comings pointed out by the complainants. This order was challenged before the National Commission who remanded the matter to be decided by the State Commission. The State Commission in the second round of litigation, after hearing the parties and after examining the report of the Local Commissioners appointed by the State Commission passed the following order:

(3.) Not being satisfied with the reliefs given/aggrieved by this order, both the parties have filed the appeals before us. We heard the parties at length and perused the material on record. Since both the appeals emanate from the same order, we go on to pass a single order on both the appeals filed before us.