ORDER
Suhas C. Sen, J. President
1. Aslam Munjee is an Indian resident in U.S.A. for very many years. He decided to come back to India and with the end in view entered into an agreement on 30th December, 1994 with the appellants to purchase a dwelling unit in Pune. He was aged 64 years at that time. According to him, he was verbally assured that the dwelling unit will be ready towards February, 1995. However, the agreement records “on or before December, 1996 approximately” as the time for delivery of the dwelling unit. There is a schedule of payment set out in the agreement for the purchase price of the dwelling unit. If there is a delay in payment, the purchaser had to pay interest at 18% for the delayed period. The case of the complainant is that since he was resident in U.S.A. and it was not possible for him to come frequently to India, he paid the entire purchase price, barring a small amount which had to be paid at the time of taking possession, well before the scheduled date. His case is that he, apart from the agreed amount stated in the written agreement, paid Rs.4,27,000 in cash under the table according to the prevailing practice in India.
2. Unfortunately, the dwelling unit was not ready, which, according to the complainant should have been ready by early 1995 according to the verbal assurance of the builder or by December, 1996, the time mentioned in the written agreement. The complainant who had come back with his entire belongings after 31 years stay in USA was put in great difficulty. The builder however provided him with a one room flat for the period during which the dwelling unit was not ready for possession. The complainant has stated that the alternative accommodation which was given was very bad. He could not sleep. The noise around him was unbearable and he could not continue writing the book which he had undertaken to write in the temporary accommodation. Ultimately, the petitioner was able to move into the dwelling unit constructed for him on May 28, 1997. At the time, he moved in, he noted several defects which the builder’s representative stated will be corrected immediately. Several of the tiles of the flat were broken especially in the bath room. The workmanship in plaster was poor and various materials used were shoddy and the door frames and the doors were very poor in quality. There was water leakage from the ceiling in the kitchen, living room and the alcove. The lift went out of order as soon as the comlainant moved in. He wrote several letters of complaint immediately after moving into possession and ultimately lodged the complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune on July 15, 1997.
3. The respondent has denied all the allegations. They have admitted that they were certainly late because of unavoidable circumstances. They have, however, pleaded in mitigation that they provided the complainant with an alternative accommodation during the period he could not be given a flat.
4. The case of the complainant is that he had been provided him with alternative accommodation which was not good. He was made to suffer in spite of many complaints. Moreover he could not move into the flat purchased by him with his luggage and belongings and resume work as he planned to write a book after returning from U.S.A.
5. Although the time was not made of the essence of the control, the builder knew the fact that the petitioner was finally coming back from U.S.A. and would like to have his flat ready when he returned. The builder had agreed to give him flat at least by December, 1996 which he failed to do. All these facts and considering the other circumstances both the district Forum and the State Commission have concurrently held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the builder and compensation of Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 18% has been awarded. It may be mentioned that the agreement provided that if there is delay in making payment of any of the instalments, the builder will be entitled to charge 18% interest from the defaulting purchaser. We see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below as to the deficiency. However, we are of the view that justice will be done adequately, in this case, if the builder pays to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim.
6. In the result, we uphold the concurrent findings of the District forum and the State Commission that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner but the amount of compensation is reduced to Rs.50,000/-only. The petitioner must pay the complainant Rs.50,000/- within a period of 6 weeks from this date failing which the amount will carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the complaint to the date of payment. The revision petition is disposed of finally as above. No order as to costs.