IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation cannot be enhanced on imaginary basis.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—These revision petitions are arising out of one order of State Commission, hence, decided by a common order.

2. These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against order dated 12.9.2007 passed by State Commission in appeal No. 426 of 2007- Punjab Small Industries & Export Corpn. Ltd. VS. Gurjeet Singh & Ors. and in appeal No. 605 of 2007- Gurjeet Singh & Anr. VS. Punjab Small Industries & Export Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. by which while dismissing appeal of opposite party, appeal of complainant was allowed and compensation was enhanced.

3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant No. 2/Respondent No. 2 was allotted industrial plot No. F-389 at SAS Nagar vide allotment letter dated 7.6.2001 and possession was given vide letter dated 3.8.2002. He made payment of Rs. 1,74,840/-. On site inspection, he found that there was no provision of electricity and development work in the area as in pitiable condition and basic amenities were also not provided. Complainant approached opposite party/petitioner who promised to provide basic amenities in the area. In the absence of amenities pertaining to electricity connection, complainant could not start industry in spite of construction of factory on the plot. It was, further, alleged that opposite party charged excess Rs. 13,000/- and did not grant 10% rebate on making lumpsum payment and also charged extension money of Rs. 31,720/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party No. 1/Petitioner contested complaint and admitted allotment of plot and further submitted that vide letter dated 27.12.2001, complainant was intimated that process of development work was in progress and allotment would be made effective from the date of providing basic amenities in the area which was completed in middle of 2002 and allotment was made effective from 1.7.2002 and entire payment of interest on due instalments from 7.6.2001 to 1.7.2002 was waived. It was, further, submitted that interest was charged for the period from 1.7.2002 to 19.9.2002 and 10% rebate was not allowed as payment was not made within 60 days. It was, further, submitted that there was no provision in the project cost for providing HD/LD (high tension/ low distribution) network and no amount was charged from allottee for providing said facility and extension fee was rightly charged and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 did not appear and they were proceeded exparte. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh as electricity connection was not provided within reasonable time and further allowed Rs. 1,100/- as litigation cost. Both the parties preferred appeal and Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of opposite party/petitioner but allowed appeal of respondent/complainant and enhanced compensation to Rs. 6.00 lakhs from Rs. 1.00 lakhs and further quashed expenses fee of Rs. 31,720/- with cost of Rs. 10,000/- against which these revision petitions have been filed.

4. Respondent No. 4 was deleted.

5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

6. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that Learned State Commission has committed error in enhancing compensation without any cogent reason and beyond the scope of prayer made in the complaint, hence revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2 submitted that order passed by State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petitions be dismissed.

7. In this matter, this Commission issued limited notice on 18.1.2008 only to the extent whether compensation awarded by the State Commission is excessive having regard to the deficiency.

8. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on