ORDER

These two Revision Petitions No.1523 and 1524 of 2022 have been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘the Act’) by the Petitioner/Complainant against the impugned orders dated 22.07.2022, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (State Commission) in FA Nos. 149 and 151 of 2021 respectively. Vide Order dated 22.07.2022, the State Commission dismissed the said Appeals of the Petitioner/ Complainant and affirmed the Orders dated 25.09.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jashpur (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint Nos.CC/2020/05 & CC/2020/06 respectively wherein both the complaints filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant were dismissed.

2. Since the facts and questions of law involved in both the Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for minor variations in dates and events, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, R.P. No.1523 of 2022 shall be considered as the lead case, and the facts presented below are drawn from Consumer Complaint No.CC/2020/05.

3. For convenience, the parties are being referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4. Brief facts, as per the complainant, are that he filed a complaint before District Forum under Section 35 of the Act, 2019, against the OP regarding the failure to complete the construction of a house as per the advertisement and terms of the sale deed for building LIG-25 under the self-financing scheme of Atal Vihar Yojana. He sought possession of the building and compensation of Rs.10,000 per month for the delay, along with litigation expenses and other reliefs. Both parties admitted that the complainant was allotted LIG-25 under the self-financing scheme after depositing registration fee on 11.12.2015. The cost of building was Rs.9,71,000, and he deposited Rs.96,500 towards this amount. The Complainant averred that according to an advertisement by the OP dated 15.03.2011 there was a provision for 5% rebate on sale price, if full payment was made in a lump sum. The sale deed was to be executed within two years of registration, and possession was to be handed over. However, the construction was not completed within stipulated period, causing him to incur rental expenses of Rs.1,000 per month. He claimed that the OP’s failure to complete the construction constitutes a deficiency in service.

5. In their Written Version before the District Forum, OP denied the complainant’s allegations, except for some accepted facts. OP asserted that the complainant was supposed to pay the sale price in four equal instalments, as per the allotment order. The 5% rebate applied only to those who paid the entire amount in a lump sum, which the Complainant did not do. He originally had different building (Building No.6) allotted but voluntarily transferred it to LIG-25. The construction of LIG-25 was completed on 19.01.2017, and the sale deed was executed and registered on 14.08.2018. The possession of the building was offered to him on 30.09.2018, but he failed to take possession. He filed the complaint on 17.03.2020, which was time-barred as the cause of action arose on 11.12.2015. They also cited Clause 37 of the allotment order, which vested jurisdiction over disputes with the Commissioner of the Chhattisgarh Housing Board in Raipur, requesting dismissal of the complaint as it lacked merit.

6. The District Forum in its Order dated 22.08.2017 dismissed the complaint with the following observations:

“19. After careful consideration, this District Commission comes to the conclusion that there has been no deficiency in service against the complainant by the Opposite Parties. Any kind of relief from the parties against the complainant on the above grounds not entitled to receive any relief. Therefore, the question under consideration is concluded as “not established”.

20. The complaint submitted by the complainant is dismiss