NIRMALYA MUKHOPADHYAY Vs. WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Revision Petitions, by the Complainants, are directed against two separate orders dated 26.05.2015, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 1153 and 1154 of 2013. By the impugned orders, while affirming the orders dated 26.09.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-II, Kolkata (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 268 and 267 of 2012, preferred by the Petitioners herein, alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the West Bengal Housing Board, the Respondent herein, for not adequately compensating them for the delay in delivery of possession of the flats allotted to them under Eastern Groove Housing Project in the MIG category, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals. By the said orders, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaints on the ground that the delay in delivery of possession was on account of delay in laying of electrical HT and LT cables.

(2.) Succinctly put, the grievance of the Complainants is that though they were assured possession of the flats under the Project in question before the end of December, 2008 but actually the possession was delivered only on 26.06.2011, and, therefore, they have to be adequately compensated for the harassment and monetary loss on account of payment of rent for the premises occupied by them all this while. We may note at this juncture itself that vide Housing Board's letter dated 14.07.2010, the Complainants were informed that delay and deferment in completion of the Project and handing over of common areas and facilities in the said Project by the end of December, 2008, was on account of unforeseen circumstances beyond their control, which delay got aggravated due to laying of electrical HT and LT cables and finalization thereof.

(3.) On 05.10.2016, when the cases came up for motion hearing, on a pointed query by us, it was candidly admitted by learned Counsel appearing for the Housing Board that in support of its stand, viz., that the delay in delivery of possession for almost three years was on account of unforeseen circumstances and laying of HT and LT cables, no documentary evidence was adduced by the Housing Board before the Fora below. In view of the said situation, learned Counsel had sought time to seek instructions if the Complainants could be adequately compensated for the delay in delivery of possession. Again, on 22.11.2016, at the request of learned Counsel for the Housing Board, further four weeks time was granted for the said purpose. When the cases came up for hearing on 05.01.2017, learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that as per his instructions, the Housing Board was not inclined to pay any compensation, in any form, to the Complainants for the delay in delivery of possession of the flats in question. In view of the said stand, we had directed personal appearance of an official of the Housing Board to assist us in making appropriate orders in the cases.