JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, (President)
1. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUDA) is aggrieved by the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing its appeal while at the same time partly allowing the cross-appeal filed by the respondent-complainant. PUDA was opposite party before the District Forum in a complaint filed by the respondent.
2. Dispute pertained to handing over of possession of allotment of an MIG house to the complainant. House was allotted to him on 4.12.1987. He paid the price as was required of him. It is stated by PUDA that on 27.1.1988 complainant submitted required documents for taking over possession of the house and that on 29.1.1988 paper possession was in fact given. Before however, actual physical possession could be given on 16.12.1988 the house was occupied by migrants affected by terrorism. Till this date possession has not been given to the complainant. It was contended at the outset by Ms. Issar, learned counsel for the PUDA that between 29.1.1988 and 16.2.1988 complainant did not take any action to take physical possession of the house. Such an argument is a sad commentary on the affairs of PUDA. Complaining deficiency in service complainant knocked the door of the District Forum. Various preliminary objections were raised by the PUDA to the maintainability of the complaint. But all these were rejected. It is not necessary for us to set out these preliminary objections as on the fact of it, it could not be disputed that the complaint was maintainable as there was clear deficiency in service on the part of PUDA. Complainant alleged that he was deprived of the house allotted to him. He had live in rented accommodation for which he was paying Rs. 1,000/- rent per month and on the other hand migrants were receiving Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month on account of rent. Stand of the PUDA was that all these period steps were being taken to evict the migrants. District Forum noted that nothing was shown if any worthwhile attempt was made to get the house vacated and possession given to the complainant.
3. Accepting the complaint, District Forum directed PUDA to get the house vacated and to have over the vacant possession of the same to the complainant. PUDA was also directed to pay Rs. 500/- per month to the complainant for the period from 1.10.93 to 31.1.1997 towards compensation as during this period complainant suffered loss as he was residing at another house taken on rent. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was also awarded as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant. It was further directed that in case possession of the house was not given to the complainant immediately then he would be entitled to compensation at Rs. 1,000/- per month from 1.2.1997. That would be in effect from the date of the order of the District Forum which is dated 28.1.1997. Rs. 1,000/- per month was awarded w.e.f. from 1.2.1997 as it was found that there was enormous increase in the rent. District Forum also awarded Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant towards litigation expenses.
4. Both the parties went in appeal while PUDA wanted to have the order set aside, complainant wanted enhancement of compensation from the date he was allotted the house i.e. 4.12.1987.
5. As noted above, appeal of the PUDA was dismissed while that filed by the complainant was partly allowed with the modification that the State Commission directed that the compensation of Rs. 500/- per month should be from January 1, 1988 instead of from October 1, 1993 as directed by the District Forum. In all other respect the order of the District Forum was affirmed. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission in exercise of our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. This revision petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 2,000/-.