The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the context of delayed delivery of possession.

Dr. P.K. Vasudeva, Member—This appeal has been filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector-9, Chandigarh through its Chairman/Secretary under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for setting aside the order dated 23.12.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as District Forum - I) in Complaint Case No. 1152/93/A.98 for being contrary to law and facts as against the record.

2. As per the averments made in the Complaint Case No. 1152/93/A.98 the respondents/complainants submitted an Application Form along with Bank Draft dated 18.5.1997 for the sum of 8,000/- for registration of the flat under Lease Hold Plot Scheme for General Public, 1987. The respondents/complainants deposited the sum of Rs. 32,000/- on 5.1.1991, Rs. 30,000/- on 30.5.1991, Rs. 24,000/- on 22.7.1991 and then Rs. 8,402/- on 24.7.1991 respectively. The appellant-Chandigarh Housing Board issued allotment letter No. 325 dated 30.4.1991 to the respondents/complainants allotting dwelling unit No. 2051, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh to whom the respondents/complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 9,100/- as penalty on 24.4.1992 and completed all other formalities as required by the appellant-Chandigarh Housing Board. The respondents/complainants filed a complaint in the District Forum-I in which they had prayed that the appellant/respondent be directed to pay interest @ 24% on the paid amount for the period for which the actual and physical possession has been delayed, pay damages @ 25% per annum w.e.f. 29.11.1991 which the complainants would have earned as rental of the said flat, and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as damage for the harassment and mental agony. However, the physical possession of the flat was not delivered to him, hence alleging deficiency of the service on the part of the appellant. The District Forum- I found that delay in the delivery of possession, which constitutes deficiency in the service on the part of the appellant for which the complainants are required to be compensated. It has in its order stated that there is no mathematical yardstick to measure compensation yet keeping in view the criteria of reasonableness, we deem it expedient to award Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant who otherwise has been given a flat at the old rates despite his having deposited the initial amount late as mentioned earlier and Rs.2,000/- as costs.

3. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum-I, the appellant - Chandigarh Housing Board has attempted this Appeal No. 127 of 2000. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, namely, Mr. Jagdish Marwaha and the learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. Arunjeev Singh Walia, Advocate and carefully perused the order of the District Forum-I, along with the record of the complaint case. We now proceed to examine the rival contentions of the parties.

4. Briefly the respondents/complainants, namely, Daljit Singh s/o Jagat Singh and Kulwant Kaur w/o S. Daljit Singh, 1041, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh submitted an application form along with Bank Draft dated 18.5.1997 for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- for the registration for a flat under Lease Hold Plot Scheme for General Public, 1987. On receiving the application and demand draft the appellant sent acceptance-cum-demand letter dated 13.4.1988 and the respondents/complainants were allotted registration No. 490. As per the avernments made in the complaint Case No. 1152/93/A.98 the respondents/complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 32,000/- on 5.1.1991, Rs. 30,000/- on 30.5.1991, Rs. 8,042/- on 27.7.1991 and a penalty for a sum of Rs. 9,100/- on 25.4.1992, the details of which are given in the para 4 of the complaint.

5. The respondents/complainants have alleged that despite depositing the total amount and completing all other formalities as required by the appellant-Chandigarh Housing Board the physical possession of the flat was not delivered to them