ORDER

For the Appellant                Mr B S Sharma – IN PERSON

For the Respondents           Ananya Mishra, Mr Mahendra Kumar &

                                       Mr Ilin Saraswat, Advocate      

ORDER

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA

1.     This First Appeal under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) is directed against the order dated 06.10.2016 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Execution Application no. 1 of 2015 directing the respondent Madhya Pradesh Grih Nirman Mandal Paryawas Bhavan (Housing Board) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant for the delay in handing over possession of the house allotted to him within three months of the order failing which to pay the amount with compensation @ 8% per annum simple interest.

2.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the material on record.

3.     Briefly put, the relevant facts of the case are that the appellant responded to an advertisement by the respondent Housing Board in December 2005 regarding sale of a house for a price of Rs.21,87,000/-. A sum of Rs.21,87,000/- was paid by the appellant on 21.12.2005 by way of a single instalment. However, possession of the house allotted (no.27) had been given to another allottee by the respondent and therefore, the appellant filed complaint no.19 of 2008 before the State Commission. This complaint was disposed on contest by order dated 05.02.2009 which was appealed against before this Commission in FA no.111 of 2009 which came to be disposed through order on 18.11.2009. Vide this order, the Housing Board was directed to hand over the possession of a house exactly on the same terms and conditions as per which house no.27 was handed over to Mr Naresh Rajnani and Mrs Geeta Rajnani. The Housing Board was held liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the deposited amount for the delay in delivery of possession vide this order in FA no.777 of 2006 (B S Sharma vs Estate Officer, MP Housing Board). The said amount was adjusted towards the balance amount payable by the appellant to the respondent Housing Board. The board was to raise a fresh demand within a week and the appellant was directed to make the payment within two weeks thereafter and on receipt of the amount, the Housing Board was directed to hand over possession of the house, complete in all respects, within a further period of one week. Vide order dated 05.05.2008 in FA no.777 of 2008 on the ground that despite entire amount of Rs.21,87,000/- was paid on 27.12.2005, the possession of the house which was to be given in June 2007 had not been handed over till April 2010.

4.     Against the order of the State Commission dated 25.06.2010 in Execution Application no.13 of 2010, the appellant filed another First Appeal (FA no.233 of 2019) before this Commission which came to be disposed of by way of an order dated 02.03.2015, allowing the appeal and partly modifying the order of the State Commission and directing the MP Housing Board to pay interest @ 8% per annum for a period of 33 months instead of 18 months.

5.     In the present appeal it is contended by the appellant/ complainant that the cost paid by Mr Naresh Rajnani and Mrs Geeta Rajnani for the house allotted by the Housing Board was Rs.25,50,353/- while the amount charged from the appellant was Rs.29,16,412/- (including interest on the amount of Rs.21,87,000/- @ 8% for 33 months for delay in possession). Appellant therefore, claimed that Rs.3,66,059/- should have been refunded to him as on 30.04.2010. It is contended that the Board, vide letter dated 09.09.2016, had accepted the liability to pay Rs.4,81,140/- as interest till 30.04.2010 but had failed to do so. It is the contention of the appellant that after the adjustment of the amount, the Board was liable to pay Rs.1,18,059/- on 30.04.2010, whereas the appellant was made to deposit Rs.2,48,272/-. Therefore, th