Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela, Etc. ..... Appellants
Vs
Rourkela Regional Improvement Trust & Anr. ..... Respondents

BEFORE :

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Balakrishna Eradi, President
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S.Yadav, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S.Chadha, Member
Dr.(Mrs.) R.Thamarajakshi, Member
Mr. S.P.Bagla, Member

For the Appellants in all the Appeals : Mr. B.Vaidyanathan, 
                                                          Authorised Representative
For the Respondents in all the Appeals: Mr. B.Parthasarathi, Advocate

B.S.YADAV, J. MEMBER 

These appeals have been filed against the orders dated 15th January, 1994, passed in the Consumer Dispute Cases Nos. 336, 338, 345, 346, 350, 353, 354, 358, 360, 361, 362, 364, 365 and 366/92 and 182/93 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa at Cuttack.

It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts of the cases. Briefly stated the facts are that to provide accommodation in Rourkela Town, the Respondents herein, who was Opposite Party No.2 in the complaints introduced a scheme known as "CHHEND HOUSING PROJECT" Stage-II, Phase-I. It included houses for higher income group, middle income group and lower income group. The scheme was a self financing scheme under which the allottee was required to deposit amounts by instalments which were to be utilised for construction of the houses allotted to them. The various Complainants were allotted one house each and they deposited instalments as required. Nature of the houses and facilities to be provided were incorporated in a brochure issued by the Respondent. The case of the various Complainants was that the houses allotted were not made ready for delivery within the stipulated period, infrastructure as given out in the brochure was not provided, cost was escalated and construction is substandard. The Complainants claimed various sums under different heads as damages.

All these complaints were contested by the Respondent. There was another complaint before the State Commission, titled Shyam Sundar Garg Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. In that case the State Commission remarked as follows:

"9. In case we enter into the facts in this case, our findings would conclude the matter. Before entering into these allegations, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to Opposite Parties to consider individual allegation afresh since all allegations are directed against its officers though at some stages by ratification of the Board, such actions have been given protection. These decisions do not appear to be based on consideration of materials and scrutiny. Therefore, such decisions require to be revised.

10. To mitigate the grievance of the allottees, Opposite Parties are directed to constitute a Committee consisting of architect, engineer, finance expert who can have proper costing and some independent person with integrity who would examine:(i) Whether the scheme given out in the brochure has been adhered to;

(ii) If not adhered to the cause for the same;
(iii) If delay in construction was unavoidable and the reason for the delay;
(iv) Whether the construction of building is substandard;
(v) Whether any of the substandard constructions found can be repaired;
(vi) Whether the escalation is justified and was unavoidable;
(vii) Whether the infrastructure provided is as promised; and
(viii) Whether the grievance of the individual allottees is justified.

It goes without saying that Committee shall go to the spot and inspect the buildings and area, give an opportunity to the allottees of individual houses to point out the deficiencies, and thereafter submit its report to the opposite parties. Any allottee requesting for copy of the report shall be supplied with the same on payment of cost which shall not exceed Rs.200/- in any case. Opposite parties shall remove the deficiencies as per report of the Committee. Entire exercise shall be completed by end of July, 1994. Any allottee feeling aggrieved may file complaint if the recommendations in the report is not accepted by opposite parties."

Consumer Dispute cases which are subject matter of these appeals were disposed of incorporating the directions given in para no.10 of the order passed in Shyam Sundar Garg's case and reproduced above. Feeling aggrieved against those orders the complainants of these cases have filed these appeals. 

It was rightly pointed out on behalf of the Appellants that after coming to the conclusion that the grievance of the allottees was genuine, the State Commission fell in error by directing the Opposite Party to constitute a Committee. The complaints are against the Opposite Party and by giving the Opposite Party power to constitute a Committee of persons of its choice, the State Commission has authorised the Opposite Party to decide the complaint instead of deciding it itself. It is anybody's guess that such committee formed by the Opposite party will not be an independent committee. However, the Complainants or their representative have not been given any right to take part in the proceedings of such committee. They have only been given a right to point out the deficiencies to the Committee. Therefore, we have no option but to set aside the orders impugned in these appeals. Accordingly we allow the present appeals and set aside the impugned orders and remand the cases to the State Commission for disposal in accordance with law. In case the State Commission thinks it proper it can appoint some expert to go into the questions raised by the Complainants about substandard construction, absence of infrastructure, etc. As the cases are old ones the State Commission is requested to dispose of the cases within three months of receipt of this order. We make no order as to costs.