The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 12.09.2014 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (‘the State Commission’) in FA no. 1865 of 2010.

2.          Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant. He states that the District Forum has passed the final order in the complaint after considering the argument of both the parties on 25.04.1998. The opposite party submitted a recall application to the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order date 18.05.1998 passed another order confirming its earlier order. This order was challenged before the State Commission vide appeal number 1374 of 1998. The State Commission allowed the appeal vide its order dated 17.03.2006 and gave opportunity to the respondents for challenging the impugned order dated 25.04.1998 as fresh before the State Commission. The respondent challenged this order by filing a revision petition no.2817 of 2006 before this Commission. This Commission also dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 21.09.2010 but in the interest of justice granted a specific 30 days’ time for challenging the order dated 25.04.1998 passed by the District Forum. The respondent then filed an appeal before the State Commission though with the delay of 14 days and the State Commission condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the District Forum vide its order dated 18.12.2013. The petitioner then challenged the order dated 18.12.2013 by way of revision petition no.1494 of 2014 before this Commission and the revision petition was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 27.05.2014 by giving a specific direction to the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum as well as dismissed the complaint vide order dated 12.09.2014.

3.     Hence, the present revision petition.

4.     Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the deficiencies and defects in the house were accepted by the respondent as would be clear from letter dated 18.07.1990. The District Forum had accepted the complaint of the petitioner however, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that possession was taken without any protest. The learned counsel further stated that when the house was taken, its cost was Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner could not make use of the full house as the complainant could not rectify the defects on its own because the matter was under litigation. Thus, the complainant has suffered great loss due to negligence and deficiency on the part of the respondent and therefore, the complainant should be appropriately compensated.

5.     On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the possession was given to the complainant and he has recorded his satisfaction on the possession letter. Thus, later on, the complainant cannot indicate various defects in the house. Moreover, the complainant has not paid various installments and current dues on the complainant are about more than Rs.2.00 lakh.

6.     As the matter relates to only some defects in the house which was taken in the year 1990 and the complaint is lingering on since 1992, we deem it expedient to dispose of the matter finally. The letter dated 18.07.1990 written by the Secretary, Rae Bareily Development Authority, the respondent herein, reads as under:

“With reference to your application dated 19.06.1990, it is to inform that the Indira Nagar (extn.,) scheme of Pradhikaran is financed by HUDCO and construction/ development are being made in accordance with the HUDCO’s sanctioned terms. As far as damage in room or missing of materials are concerned the same will be rectified/ completed/ fulfilled at the earliest.”

7.     Looking at the cost of the house at that time and the defects indicated in the letter dated 18.07.1990, we deem it appropriate to allow a compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order of the District Forum, i.e., 25.04.1998 till the actual payment.

8.     On the basis of the above discussion, the revision petition no. 4471 of 2014 is partly allowed and the order dated 12.09.2014 of the State Commission is set aside. The respondent/ opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) along with interest @ 6% per annum from 25.04.1998 till the date of actual payment. As the respondent has to recover some money (about Rs.2.00 lakh as told by the learned counsel for the respondent and also mentioned in the order of the State Commission), we deem it appropriate to also order that the amount payable to the petitioner/ complainant in accordance with this order shall be adjusted against dues against the petitioner by the respondent authority.

9.     This order be complied by the respondent within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.