ORDER
Suhas C. Sen, J. (President)
1. The Petitioner is engaged in construction of buildings. The Respondent and 14 other persons were the owners of the land area at No. 12, Saurabh Colony, Amravati. The Petitioner was engaged by the co-owners of the plot of land to construct three building thereon. Each building was to have six apartments. On or about 2.9.1989 the Petitioner entered into individual agreements with each of co-owners and the deed of declaration under the Maharashtra Ownership Act was registered on 7.5.1990. The flats were completed and handed over to the Respondents on 17.8.1990. On 11.7.1994, i.e. 4 years after taking the possession of the premises, the Respondent filed complaints before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amravati, making various allegations about the construction of the flats against the Petitioner.
2. The Petitioners, as a counter blast, filed Special Civil Suit no. 319 of 1994, against the Respondents which is pending before the II-Joint Civil Judge, Amravati.
3. The District Forum did not go into the controversy on the ground that a detailed investigation of facts would be necessary. On appeal, the State Commission held that the District forum was in error in not deciding the controversy raised before it. It appointed two Architects, namely, Shri Kolte and Shri Belekar as Commissioners and directed them to file reports after visiting the site. On 2nd March, 1999 both the Architects submitted their reports. Relying upon the report of Shri Belekar and without any reference to the report of Shri Kolte, the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondents. A Revision Petition was filed by the Petitioner before this National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which by order dated 27.10.1999, the order of the State Commission was set aside on the ground that it had failed to take notice of Shri Kolte’s report at all and the matter was remanded back to the State Commission to decide the case afresh after taking into consideration Shri Kolte’s report.
4. On remand, the State Commission once again went into the question of compensation, if any, was payable to the Complainant. They examined both the reports. The State Commission was of the view, on analysis of the facts and the materials placed before it, that Kolte’s report was not impartial and objective. The State Commission came to the conclusion that Belekar’s report was more objective and the contents of the said report could be accepted. Belekar was an independent and impartial expert. The State Commission ultimately passed the following order:
“In Appeal No. 156 of 1996 by Smt. Kamalabai Chanpurkar, the Respondent/Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 80,000/- with interest of 18% from the date of complaint till payment plus cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant.
In Appeal No. 155/96 by Mr. Mukherjee, the Opposite party shall pay the appellant Rs. 60,000/- with 18% interest thereon from the date of complaint till payment plus cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant.
In Appeal No. 158/96, by Mr. J.M. Chandak, the Opposite party shall pay Rs. 80,000/- with 18% interest thereon from the date of complaint till payment plus cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant.
In Appeal No. 159/96 by Ramprasad and Sudha Yati, the Opposite party/Respondent shall pay Rs. 1 lakh with 18% interest thereon from the date of complaint, till payment plus cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant.
As far as these appeals are concerned, no order as to cost.”
5. According to the Petitioner, Belekar’s report was not reliable and a third opinion should have been sought. We have not been shown any specific error in Belekar’s report. The State Commission in its first judgment found it acceptable. On remand, no defect in the report was found. The State Commission did not think it necessary to call for a third report. We see no reason to interfere with a pure finding of fact.
6. However, we do not see any reason why the State Commission has ordered to pay interest on the amount awarded as compensation from the date of the complaint till the date of payment. The Petitioner has rightly pointed out that the total amount payable by the Petitioner will be more than the cost of construction of the flat. We are of the view that justice will be done in this case if the Petitioner is directed only to pay the amount of compensation as calculated by the State Commissioner. The direction to pay interest will stand deleted. Therefore, we direct the Petitioner to pay the amount of compensation in each of the appeals in terms of the order passed by the State Commission. However, the Petitioner will not be required to pay any interest. The order of payment of costs, however, is sustained.
7. The amount of compensation and costs will be payable within a period of three months from the date of this order. If that amount is not paid within the period of three months, interest will be payable on the amount of compensation and costs in each case at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of default till the date of payment. The Revision Petition is disposed of finally without any directions as to costs.