National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ashish Shelters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Satish V. Chandorkar on 29 August, 2002
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW
DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1496
OF 2002
(From
the order dated 10.1.2002 in appeal
No.317/2001 of the
State
Commission Maharashtra)
Ashish
Shelters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner
Vs.
Satish V.
Chandorkar
Respondent
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,
PRESIDENT
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA,
MEMBER.
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER.
MR.
B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER.
Possession of unauthorized construction with threat of demolition lurking large -
not legal possession - Award o compensation on this account upheld.
For the petitioner : Mr. Jaydeep N. Pawar, Advocate
O R D E R
DATED THE 29th August, 2002 JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J. (PRESIDENT) It is the builder who was opposite party before the District Forum and now petitioner before us.
Complaint of the respondent-complainant before the District Forum was that he had entered into an agreement with the petitioner for purchase of flat to be built by the petitioner. That the petitioner charged excess amount than agreed to and also made illegal construction against the by-laws which had to be later regularised . Holding that there was deficiency in service District Forum directed the petitioner to refund the excess amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost. Interest was also awarded @ 18% per annum.
Aggrieved by this order, petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission. Its plea was that the complaint was barred by limitation. State Commission was of the view that the limitation will start only when the construction was regularised by the local authorities and from that the complaint was within limitation. In our view, 2 State Commission rightly held that possession of a flat which did not conform to the by-laws of local authorities and was unauthorised could not be taken as legal possession and it could best be de facto possession. There was always threat of demolition of unatuthorised construction and the possession will be legal only after construction is regularised. That being the position, we agree with the State Commission that the complaint was within the period of limitation.
Another grievance raised by the petitioner was that compensation should not have been awarded when excess price has been ordered to be refunded to the complainant. State Commission, in our view, rightly held that complainant had to suffer because of construction being unauthorised and in fact compensation of Rs.5000/- for a period for construction remained unauthorised was only a paltry sum. We may note that the State Commission reduced the award of interest from 18% to 12% per annum.
We do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed.
J (JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA) PRESIDENT J (J.K. MEHRA) MEMBER (RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) MEMBER (B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER