TOWN IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. SEEMA GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I propose to dispose of the above-noted two revision petitions involving similar question of law and facts.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petitions are that the respondents Seema Goyal and Tarun Goyal filed separate consumer complaints No. 705/2016 and 706/2016 alleging deficiency in service in service on the part of the opposite party trust in failure to deliver within the stipulated period, possession of the flats allotted to them. The District Forum while accepting the plea of the respondents/complainants regarding deficiency in service on the part of the trust directed the petitioner/opposite party in respective cases to pay to the respondents/complainants Rs. 10,000/- each p. m. as compensation w. e. f. 27. 10. 2013 till delivery of the actual physical possession of the flats in question to the said complainants after providing the basic amenities with cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 5,000/- in each case.

(3.) Being aggrieved of the orders the petitioner trust preferred appeal Nos. 459/2016 and 461/2016. The State Commission on re-appreciation of the evidence affirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal vide separate orders dated 1 1. 2017.