ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This revision petition arises out of the order passed by the State Commission affirming the order of the District Forum where the respondent/ complainant had filed a complaint alleging negligence on the part of the petitioner/opposite party.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had booked a flat with the opposite party for a consideration of Rs. 2.00 lakhs of which admittedly Rs. 1.75 lakhs was paid between September, 1993 to May, 1994. Agreement to Sell was executed on 23.11.1993. As per its terms the flat was to be given within 7 months of the agreement. When the possession of the flat was not given within this time frame, complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service. The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to deliver the possession of flat completed in all respects within 30 days, and pay for loss of rent @ 1,500/- p.m. from 8.8.1994 till realization, Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for mental torture and Rs. 5,000/- as costs. Complainant was also directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner on receipt of possession. An appeal filed, against this order before the State Commission was dismissed. Since, the order in appeal had been passed ex parte, & review application was filed before the State Commission which was also dismissed, hence, this Revision Petition.
3. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 3.11.1999, State Commission had passed order appointing an Architect as Local Commissioner whose report is on record. No reference to this report has been made in the order of the State Commission. Petitioner is willing to abide by the report and is ready to remove the defects.
4. The State Commission should not have proceeded ex parte as the lawyer representing the petitioner before the State Commission had to go suddenly out of the city and had prayed for adjournment. The case of the complainant is that, that flat is not habitable. Latrine is not complete and there is no connection with any sewage system. There are other repairs required.
5. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that there has been delay in offering possession of the flat and that there have been problems with the flat as noted by the Architect.
6. Besides the learned Counsel, both the parties were also present. It was agreed between the parties that besides Rs. 75,000/- already paid to the complainant by the petitioner in orders of the State Commission, the petitioner shall pay a further sum of Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant to compensate for the loss caused to the complainant for delayed offer of possession. The petitioner also generously agreed to forego Rs. 25,000/- i.e. balance amount of the cost of the flat, directed to be paid by the complainant to the petitioner by orders of the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. The petitioner shall take immediate steps to make the flat habitable in all respects within six weeks by carrying out all the repairs/works mentioned in the report of the Architect prepared on the directions of the State Commission and hand over the possession forming part of records as also take steps to complete the documentation to convey the flat to the complainant within this period.
7. The order of the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission is modified in above terms and the petition is as allowed only to this extent. No order as to costs.