LAWS(NCD)-1997-2-61

BIRJA SHANKER ACHARYA Vs. ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD

Decided On February 28, 1997
Birja Shanker Acharya Appellant
V/S
ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioner herein approached the District Forum, Puri with a complaint stating that the house which was allotted to him and whose possession was delivered to him by the Orissa State Housing Board, was defective in several respects and hence he was entitled to claim by way of compensation the cost which will have to be incurred for setting right those defects. The District Forum elaborately went into the matter and found that there were several defects in the house allotted to the Petitioner and after considering two technical reports which were available before it prepared by qualified Engineers, it awarded to the Complainant (Revision Petitioner herein) a compensaction of Rs. 13,874/ - inclusive of a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - which was awarded for mental agony which the Complainant had to suffer on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board.

(2.) ON the case being taken up in appeal before the State Commission, Orissa, the State Commission confirmed the finding of the District Forum that the construction of the building was defective and held that the report of the retired Chief Engineer, which was relied on by the District Forum constituted adequate proof of the said fact. After having recorded the said finding the State Commission very strangely, thereafter proceeded to state that since the moneys in the hands of the Housing Board from out of which the compensation has been directed to be paid, are public funds "the State exchequer would ultimately be affected" and hence instead of awarding monetary compensaction to the Complainant the better course would be to direct the Housing Board itself to constitute team of Engineers to inspect the house and get the grievance of the Complainants remedied by removing the deficiencies that may be found in the building. In this view, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and in supersession thereof disposed of the case with a mere direction that the Housing Board should constitute a team of Engineers as aforesaid and remove the deficiencies that may be found by the team, in the house allotted to the Complainant within a period of three months. It further proceeded to state that if even thereafter the Complainant felt dissatisfied he will be free to "approach the proper Redressal Agencies for compensation or other directions". It is against the aforesaid order passed by the State Commission that the Complainant has come up with this Revision Petition before us.

(3.) ONCE it was found by the State Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board, it was its duty to go into the question as to whether the compensation fixed and awarded by the District Forum to the Complainant was just and fair or whether it was excessive as contended by the Appellant. Inasmuch as this question has not been gone into by the State Commission, the Counsel for the Respondent before us is justified in his submission that the case may be remanded to the State Commission for determination of this limited question. Hence, we remand the case to the State Commission for de novo disposal of the appeal after determination of the question as to whether the quantum of compensation awarded to the Complainant by the District Forum calls for any modification. It is made clear that the finding recorded by the State Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Board is confirmed and the said question shall not be reopened in the proceedings after remand. The Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties will bear their respective costs.