ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. These three revision petitions arise out of the orders passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner against the orders of District Forum which had allowed the complaints.
2. Brief facts of these cases are that the complainants booked flats in early 1991 under SFS with the petitioner and paid the amount in instalments in time as was indicated to them in the initial letters of allotment dated 31.5.1991. The last instalment was payable on 22.11.1992 in each case. This was done. Instead of giving possession of the flats within a reasonable time of payment of the last instalment, say three months, the complainants were communicated to deposit escalated costs vide letters dated 22.5.1993. The possession of the flats were given on 11.4.1997 (R.P. No. 1366/2002), on 25.3.1997 (R.P. No. 1367/2002) and on 25.3.1998 (R.P. No. 1368/2002) after they had deposited the escalated costs on different dates. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, three separate complaints were filed praying for interest for the period of delay in giving possession and damages/ compensation.
3. The District Forum after hearing the parties directed the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for the period of delay in handing over the possession and cost of Rs. 200/- in each case. Appeals filed by the petitioner in all these cases were dismissed, hence, this petition.
4. It is forcefully argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no deficiency on their part. As soon as the escalation cost was paid, possession was given to the complainants. If there has been any delay, it has been on their part because the complainants did not deposit the escalated costs within the stipulated time. He also argued that the complainants are barred by limitations. At best, the last instalments were deposited in early April whereas the complaints have been filed in October, 1999, thus, much exceeding the time limit of two years fixed for filing a complaint for the date of cause of action arose. On both these questions the petitions need to be allowed and complaint be dismissed.
5. We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. The point on limitation was agitated before the District Forum and the State Commission. The State Commission has very ably dealt with this point. It has been held severally by the Apex Court that C.P.A. is a piece of Social Welfare Legislation and it can not be of public bodies — like the B.D.A. in this case -to raise objections on technicalities. They are a welfare set-up and rendering a service to the people at large. They should be rendering the service well within a given time; that should be their aim. They should be arguing the cases on merits and come clean on that count. In the present case the last instalment under SFS was due on 22.11.1992. It is not disputed that they were paid in time. We agree with the District Forum that they should have given the possession in the next three months. Delay in handing over possession after recovering full payment itself a deficiency in service as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 243. To continue to enjoy the money of the helpless consumers without giving them the flats is in our view a fit case where they need to be compensated. We have upheld this principle in our judgment in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar, I (2002) CPJ 35 (NC)=R.P. No. 1197 of 1998. Payment as per schedule of payments was made in time by 22.11.1992. Possession was given in 1997 and 1998, whereas possession should have been given immediately after initial deposit. This was not done. In our view, District Forum was right in directing the petitioner to pay interest for the period of delay in handing over the possession. We see no merit in the petitions filed by the Revision Petitioner, hence, dismissed. No order as to costs.