http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  304-306 of 2004

PETITIONER: H. P. Housing Board      

RESPONDENT: Varinder Kumar Garg & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/08/2004

BENCH: S. N. VARIAVA & ARIJIT PASAYAT

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

S. N. VARIAVA, J.                          These Appeals are directed against the Order of the  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 21st April,  2003.                 Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 1st Respondent was allotted a house viz. MIG-II/97 at Raddi on 8th  October, 1992 for a consideration of Rs.1,75,866/-. The full amount  was paid.    On taking possession of the house, he noticed that there  were major defects in the construction of the building and material of  poor quality had been used.  He pointed out the defects, short comings  and construction flaws to the Appellants in various letters.  His efforts  to get the defects rectified and/or removed met with no success.  He  therefore filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes  Redressal Forum, Shimla.                 It must be mentioned that pursuant to the complaint of the  1st Respondent the Appellants had appointed an Architect to visit the  place and file a report.  The Architect had found that the slab in the  drawing room had lifted 6 cms from the centre towards the outer wall.   The Architect had also found that the slab in the bedroom had lifted by  4.5 cms towards the outer window wall.  The Architect had also found  that very poor quality concrete had been used and that the mix could  be taken out of the floor with bare fingers.  In spite of such glaring  defects having been found they had not been rectified by the  Appellants.                    The District Forum called for the Departmental files and,  on scrutiny of the files, found the above mentioned report of the  Architect.  The District Forum, on the basis of the material before it,  directed payment of damages of Rs.50,000/-.  It also directed the  Appellants to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- and further directed an enquiry  to fasten liability on the Officers or Officials who, at the relevant time,  were in-charge of construction and who had passed such defective  construction.                 On the above mentioned facts, the Order of the District  Forum was absolutely just and correct.   One would have expected  that a public body like the Appellants would have now held an enquiry  and fastened the blame on the person/s responsible; and taken action  against those persons.  Instead the Appellants files an Appeal before  the State Commission.  They also take no action against the Officers  concerned.                 The State Commission takes note of the fact that no action  had been taken against the concerned Officers in spite of the specific  directions to take action.  The State Commission notices that in the  condition in which it is the flat is inhabitable.   It therefore directs  refund of the amount of Rs.1,75,866/- along with interest at 18% from  the date of the filing of the complaint.  The State Forum enhances the  compensation to Rs.60,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- and increases the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

costs to Rs.5,000/-.                  As against this Order, the Appellants go in Revision to the  National Forum.  The National Forum sets aside the Order awarding  the compensation of Rs.60,000/- and maintains the directions to  refund the amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.  The  National Forum holds that the interest will be payable from the date of  respective deposit of the amount.                    We have heard the parties. In our view, the  conduct of the Appellants is shocking.  They first sell a defective flat  and even when the defects are pointed out to them and confirmed by  their Architect they take no action to rectify and/or removed the  defects.  We have set out the defects above.  It is clear that the  defects are of serious nature.  The slabs of the drawing room and  bedroom have lifted.  There is a strong possibility that they may  collapse at any moment.  The flat is inhabitable unless major repairs  are carried out to the flat.    Before us there is a dispute as to whether or not the 1st  Respondent is still in possession of the flat.  According to the  Appellants, the 1st Respondent is in possession.  However, 1st  Respondent claims that he is not in possession of the flat.  We do no  wish to enter into this controversy.   In our view, the conduct of the  Appellants is such that they deserve no sympathy.  Being a public  body performing a public service, they cannot act in such a blatantly  callous and corrupt manner.  They have sold a flat which had major  defects and was of a poor quality construction.  Such a construction  could not have been passed by the concerned Officers unless they  were in collusion with the contractor/builder.   One would have  expected that action had been taken not just against the  contractor/builder but also the Officers who so colluded.   In spite of  clear direction from the District Forum no action has been taken  against these Officers.  On the contrary we are told that they have  been exonerated.   One fails to understand on what basis they could  have been exonerated.     On these gross facts we give to the 1st Respondent an  option.  If he desires to keep the flat he will be entitled to do so and  will then also be entitled to have compensation of Rs.60,000/- which  he can use for getting the flat repaired.  If the 1st Respondent desires  to keep the flat he must intimate the Appellants in writing within one  month from today.   Within two weeks of the receipt of the  letter/intimation from the 1st Respondent, the Appellants shall  handover the possession of the flat, if it is with them, and also pay the  sum of Rs.60,000/-.                 If the 1st Respondent finds that the flat is inhabitable he  can inform the Appellants in writing that he does not desire to have  the flat.  In that case the Appellants shall refund the sum of  Rs.1,75,866/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from  the date when the amounts were deposited with the Appellants.   Such  refund to be made within two weeks of receipt of intimation from the  1st Respondent.   We clarify that, in this case, we are maintaining  grant of interest at 18% per annum on an ad-hoc basis and that it  includes compensation for mental agony and harassment.                    In either case, the Appellants shall pay to the 1st  Respondent costs of litigation fixed at Rs.5,000/-.         We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent  in any other matter as the order is being passed taking into account  special features of the case.   The Forum/Commission will follow the  principles laid down by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad  Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh  reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65  in future cases.                 The Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.