ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. Member
FIRST APPEAL NO. 655 OF 1994
1. In this case the Appellant has felt aggrieved on the original order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu. The Appellant is a builder and developer. He had acquired a site for constructing flats and had entered into agreements with the various intending flat buyers. The amount was to be received in phased manner and construction to be financed out of it. The flat buyers were to contribute a proportionate part towards proportionate share in the land underneath. Since the work was not being completed within the time and the progress was very slow in spite of the fact that certain excess payments had already reached the builder, the flat buyers filed complaints before the State Commission. The State Commission appointed a Commissioner who with the assistance of a Civil Engineer went into the matter and returned a finding that around 50% of the work had been done in most of the flats while in some, more than 50% has been done. The Commissioner went into various details and made his own assessment of the value of the work done. With the result, it came to light that substantial over payments had been made. However, the builder filed its objections to the report of the Commissioner. But, apparently, in the main order those objections have not been considered. According to the appellant considerable loss has resulted as a consequences of such omission to consider his objections. At the hearing none has appeared to assist us on behalf of the Respondents. We have gone into the various points of objections and discovered that some of the objections are well founded which the State Commission ought to have taken into consideration while awarding the refund of the amount. Just to cite a new examples, the land filling with earth in the basement is always on qubic feet basis when the basis adopted is sq. ft. Similarly, estimates of the engineers were (SIC) 4 inch bore-well has been given at Rs. 10,000/- for a 6″ diameter, the Commissioner has estimated at Rs. 7,500/-. The Commissioner has estimated the cost of water proofing at Rs. 25 ps. per sq. ft. which prima facie appears to be grossly undervalued. No quotations of such proofing at 25 ps. are available on the file. And, there are some other (SIC) which need to be considered. For that reason while we maintain the (SIC) of the State Commission to the extent that possession of the flats should be handed over forthwith to the flat buyers on as is where is basis, the amount of refund awarded needs to be reassessed by the State Commission after giving a full hearing to both the parties and taking into consideration the objections to the Commissioner’s report. It would be open to the State Commission to obtain such assistance of any technical hand as it may consider proper in appreciating the report of the Commissioner. For instance, water proofing etc. rates are available in the CPWD manual or even in the various tender documents of State Government, etc. it will be for both the parties to place the relevant material before the State Commission.
2. In the result, while we uphold Clause (i) of the find order passed by the State Commission, we set aside the rest of the order assessing the amounts refundable to each party and remand the case back to the State Commission for redetermining the amounts in the light of what is observed hereinabove. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
FIRST APPEAL NOS. 656, 657, 658, 659 AND 660 OF 1994.
3. These appeals are disposed of in terms of the order passed in First Appeal No. 655 of 1994, A. Velanganni v. S. Rajagopalan.