Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage.

2.     Learned counsel for the appellant states that the allotment letter was issued on 22.03.2017 and as per the provisions of this allotment letter, the possession was to be taken within 90 days and at the expiry of this 90 days, the possession would be deemed to have been taken. The appellant got the completion certificate on 29.04.2017 and therefore, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no delay in giving the possession because of the deemed provision in the allotment letter itself.  The allotment letter further states that the allotment is on “as is where is basis”. The State Commission has also agreed that there was no delay in developing the plot and thus no deficiency on the part of the appellant. However, the State Commission has still awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/- along with the order for giving possession to the complainant. The appellant is mainly aggrieved with the order of the State Commission for the award of compensation of Rs.30,000/-. The State Commission has held that there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant. Learned counsel has further stated that as per Section 14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the compensation can be given if there is deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite party which has led to the loss or injury to the complainant. In the present case, there is no loss or injury to the complainant, hence, no compensation should have been awarded by the State Commission.

3.     We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. It is seen that the allotment letter was issued about one month earlier than the date of obtaining the completion certificate. This is itself a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The allotment letter should not have been issued without obtaining completion certificate in the matter if the provision of deemed possession was to be relied by the appellant. Clearly, no possession could have been taken or given without the completion certificate. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show any letter on record, if a copy of the completion certificate was sent to the complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that completion certificate was in the public domain and therefore, there was no requirement for sending completion certificate to the complainant. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted because even the public authorities are supposed to follow the law.  The basic deficiency on the part of the appellant is that they had issued the allotment letter without obtaining the completion certificate and no communication was made to the complainant after obtaining the completion certificate. The State Commission has also accepted that the possession was not offered to the complainant by the opposite party and thus impliedly the State Commission has also not relied on the deemed provision in respect of delivery of possession. In fact, the State Commission has observed the following:-

“16.   Sequel to the above discussions we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for any refund when the project is complete. The complainant could not prove any sufficient ground to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. However, it is proved that the possession has not been offered by the opposite parties to the complainant. The amount pending against the complainant is very meagre and that can also be charged even after offering the possession to the complainant. The possession was not offered by the opposite parties to the complainant, due to which he suffered without any fault of his for which some compensation can be given. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed and following directions issued against the opposite parties:

(i)     to hand over the possession of plot no. 25 – C, measuring 125 sq yards as per allotment letter, dated 22.03.2017, subject to balance payment of Rs.9,415/- without interest or penalty;

(ii)    to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses”.

4.  Thus, the State Commission has rightly ordered compensation apart from possession to be given to the complainant as the same was already delayed. In such case, when the completion certificate was not there, the clause relating to the deemed possession is only an unfair trade practice and the complainant could not have taken the possession on the basis of the allotment letter without getting intimation as to when the completion certificate has been obtained. In this background, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the State Commission, even in respect of the award of compensation of Rs.30,000/- and accordingly, the appeal no. 508 of 2020 is dismissed in limine.