JUDGMENT - A.A. HALBE, J.:---This appeal is one of the appeals arising out of the order passed by the District Forum, Aurangabad in number of complaints wherein the grievance of the complainants was identical. The District Forum has passed common judgment in regard to 16 complaints and the present appeal by the CIDCO is against the order of the District Forum in Complaint No. 382/92. 2.In this judgment, we have elaborately discussed the case of the appellant Administrator, CIDCO, Aurangabad in regard to the complaints about the delay in possession of the tenements under various schemes and also the so-called deficiency in the construction. The other complaints against which the present appeals have been filed by the CIDCO are practically identical and do not call for any separate discussion. In all the complaints, the CIDCO has taken the common defence that the CIDCO has never given any undertaking to the applicants to deliver possession of tenements in a fixed period. No date is given by which the construction would be completed and possession delivered. It is further contended that the CIDCO is involved in the construction activity to provide residential accommodation to the economically backward people. It undertakes massive construction programme and normally the co-operation of other departments viz. the financial agency and the local Corporation is necessary to carry out the Time Bound Programme of construction. If one of the agency commits delay and if that agency is not under the control of CIDCO, the CIDCO cannot be blamed for the delay in delivering the tenements. Regarding the financing agency also, it is contended that in this particular scheme, the finance came late and prevented CIDCO from this going ahead with the construction. Apart from all this, the main thrust of the CIDCO in this appeal is that nowhere it has given in writing to the complainants that the construction will be carried out within the stipulated period and if that be so, the guess work or the assumption has no place in the consideration of the grievances and the District Forum has committed serious error in this regard and has proceeded to confer double benefits i.e. one under the head of compensation and the other under head of refund of interest. Regarding interest, it is stated that the interest is charged because the CIDCO is required to pay corresponding interest on the loans obtained from HUDCO in this scheme. Lastly, it is stated that the delay which is not attributable to the CIDCO, has, however been taken note of by CIDCO in the shape of concession granted to the tenements. As against this, the common argument on behalf of the complainants-respondents is that the booklet published by CIDCO gave a clear impression that soon after the acceptance of the amount being the cost of the flat by the CIDCO, the possession would be delivered within a short time. 3.In all these appeals, the undisputed facts are that the tenements were ready and were handed over to the respective applicants by November or December, 1993. The construction was rather complete by the end of 1992. But as the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation back-tracked in the matter of supply of water to this scheme, the possession could not be delivered. The possession could be delivered only after there was provision of water and electricity in the tenements. It is also stated that even the M.S.E.B. did not fully co-operate in putting up electrical installation in that area. After great pursuasion, they agreed to put up K.V. supply but that was not adequate to meet the present scheme of 2000 tenements and CIDCO on its own, for the first time, undertook to put up the required set for the remaining load of electrical energy. With such grace shown by the CIDCO, the complainants have abused the fairness on the part of the CIDCO. The District Forum did not take into consideration all these aspects and was guided by one judgment decided by the State Commission, Maharashtra to which we shall come later. The judgment, according to the learned Counsel for the CIDCO, can well be distinguished from the present cases. The District Forum did not take into consideration all these aspects and was guided by one judgment decided by the State Commission, Maharashtra to which we shall come later. The judgment, according to the learned Counsel for the CIDCO, can well be distinguished from the present cases. On the other hand, heavy reliance is placed by him in the Original Petition No. 273/1993 decided by the National Commission on 11-1-1995, the copy thereof is supplied and it is on record, he may indicate that in that matter also, the CIDCO was one of the parties and the National Commission succinctly observed that CIDCO could not be held guilty of delay in construction of tenements as the delay had occurred on account of the circumstances wholly beyond the control of CIDCO and not due to CIDCO's negligence. The learned Counsel has contended that the proposition that can be extracted from this judgment is that when there are several factors which have to combine properly in enabling the CIDCO to carry out the massive project and if some of the factors fall apart and dispel the entire effort from going ahead, the CIDCO cannot be blamed for the delay. With this decision, we shall deal with the case under reference. Accordingly, we turn to para No. 6 and set out the facts in brief. The complainant Marpalle Ramchandra Hulwantrao applied for the allotment in Housing Scheme No. 11. It was an application for L.I.G. 1 type tenement. 4.The CIDCO in the month of September, 1987 published a booklet for carrying out demand survey about the construction of tenements. The tenements were proposed to be constructed either on right purchase, on Hire Purchase Agreement. The total number of tenements proposed were 3000; out of which, major number was in the category of L.I.G. Some in the category of M.I.G. and a few in the category of H.I.G. respectively meant for lower income group, middle income group and higher income group. The said booklet stipulated the condition about the eligibility of the applicants and it may be stated that the income was the prime consideration. The CIDCO in discharge of its statutory obligation, proposed this scheme in Aurangabad to accommodate large number of homeless persons belonging to the different sections of the society including the economically weaker section, lower income group etc. and accordingly, formulated the scheme which was published in the booklet. The CIDCO in discharge of its statutory obligation, proposed this scheme in Aurangabad to accommodate large number of homeless persons belonging to the different sections of the society including the economically weaker section, lower income group etc. and accordingly, formulated the scheme which was published in the booklet. As per this booklet, it was specifically made clear that the estimates were in respect of built up area and that the prices were between Rs. 33,000/- to Rs. 2 lakhs as per the income group. It was also stated that such applicants can register their names by filing the applications in the prescribed form and after determination of the eligibility, the applicants will be allotted the respective tenements. It was further stated that the proposed work of building houses and buildings was likely to start in the beginning of 1988 and was likely to be completed before the monsoon of 1990. The period was approximately two and half years. About 5000 applicants respondent; out of which 3000 were eligible for allotment. The complainant was one of the eligible persons. It was contended on behalf of the complainant that as per the letter dated 19-11-1990, it was informed that he was to pay the total price of Rs. 1,95,500/- in about four installments; the last being 13-5-1991. The learned Counsel for the complainant and respondent contended that the amounts were paid and that rendered obligatory on the part of CIDCO to allot the tenements. The tenements were allotted somewhere between October and December, 1993 whereas the last instalment in some cases was taken on 7-3-1993. There was clear delay on the part of CIDCO in giving possession of the tenements. 5.As against this, exhaustive written statement has been filed on behalf of the CIDCO and that written-statement formed the major plank of the stand taken by CIDCO It is contended that in the booklet, it was no-where stated that the tenements would be delivered within a fixed period of time. It was only the expectation and the expectation was indeed depending on the responses from the financing institutions and responses from the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation in regard to water supply. It is in this background that fixed period was laid down for delivering the possession. It was only the expectation and the expectation was indeed depending on the responses from the financing institutions and responses from the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation in regard to water supply. It is in this background that fixed period was laid down for delivering the possession. All that was assumed that if everything proceeded on right course in right time, the construction would being at the end of 1986 and the construction would be completed before the monsoon of 1990. The period of about 2 1/2 years was clearly visualised for the construction. The CIDCO has contended that this never clicked and hence there was delay. In support of this, the following averments have been made by the CIDCO The scheme was finalised and it was approved by H.U.D.C.O. only in 1990. This approval of H.U.D.C.O. was necessary because of H.U.D.C.O. was the financing agency to the persons who wanted to purchase the tenement on hire purchase agreement or on outright purchase. Since this was done, letters were issued to the applicants intimating about acceptance of booking, the payment of price, instalment payable on due dates, the loan that would be granted by H.U.D.C.O. If these terms were acceptable to the applicants, the CIDCO would accept the booking of the tenement by the applicant. The applicants had option to withdraw from the scheme and that the registration charges would be refundabled. It was, therefore, specifically provided in the draft agreement that the possession of the sold house shall be delivered to the hire-purchase on or before (no date). The Corporation shall not incur any liability to the hire purchase if it is unable to deliver possession of the said house by the date aforesaid or if the completion is delayed for any reason beyond the control of the Corporation including without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the reason of non-availability of steel and/or cement or any other building material or by reason of war, riot, civil commotion, strike, go slow, lock out or an act of God or non-delivery of possession is a result of any notice, order, rule or notification of the Government, a public authority or Court of Law". 6.It is emphasised that all these conditions have been accepted by the appellant. The applicant very well knew about several circumstances that may creep in; which may ultimately delay the construction and possession of the tenement. 6.It is emphasised that all these conditions have been accepted by the appellant. The applicant very well knew about several circumstances that may creep in; which may ultimately delay the construction and possession of the tenement. The repayment schedule of the loan of the H.U.D.C.O. was also communicated. Regarding interest, it was contended that the interest was on delayed payment of installment and the same has nothing to do with the period of construction. It is the buyer's contribution to the financing agency. The applications had to be scrutinised by the Board and that this also involved time because the scheme was of 3000 houses. The provisional Architects were appointed, lay out plans were prepared and approved by the Town Planning Department in November, 1988 and the H.U.D.C.O. could finalise the scheme in 1988. The estimates were prepared by Consultants in January, 1990 and the applications were received from 21-1-1990 onward upto 22-2-1990 and for issue of tender-documents, the period was 2-3-1990 to 6-3-1990 and the negotiations with financing agency was going on upto 4-6-1990. The Board approved it by Resolution dated 20-7-1990 and the work orders were issued after demarcation of the site. The work of construction of tenement started in the month of October, 1990. It is stated that some of the construction had to be changed from one site to another viz. N-5 area to N-2 and further to Satara site. This caused delay in implementing the scheme. However, when the work started, the construction of 3000 houses was completed within the record period of 26 months i.e. by December, 1992. But the possession could not be delivered due to non-availability of water. 7.It does not seem to be in dispute that the work of construction was completed in December, 1992. But the Municipal Corporation delayed the supply of water. The M.S.E.B. also refused to adhere to the time schedule. The supply of water was given in September, 1993 whereas the M.S.E.B. carried out the electrification of external/peripherial electrification work at a late time. The M.S.E.B. with great reluctance agreed to supply only 11 K.V. Lines and Transformers and the rest of the all external electrification had to be carried out departmentally by the CIDCO itself. This was not obligatory on the part of CIDCO But, in order to avoid the delay, the CIDCO undertook this work. The M.S.E.B. with great reluctance agreed to supply only 11 K.V. Lines and Transformers and the rest of the all external electrification had to be carried out departmentally by the CIDCO itself. This was not obligatory on the part of CIDCO But, in order to avoid the delay, the CIDCO undertook this work. It is also stated that once the construction had started, it could not be halted although some of the applicants committed defaults in making payments. For that purpose loan had to be obtained from H.U.D.C.O. and inspite of all round efforts to complete the construction, it was unfortunate that the complainants were mis-guided and they approached the District Forum which did not consider all these aspects. These details are set out in the affidavit of Shri S.S. Bhise, Administrator, CIDCO. 8.The story of the appellant CIDCO is fully borne out from the various documents. We may here indicate that the office-notes of the CIDCO are extremely relevant. The learned Advocate for the complainant has contended that such notes should not be relied on. However, this argument ignores the important aspect that CIDCO is a statutory Corporation. All its activities are governed by the office procedure. That, the Board Resolutions are based on the office-notes which are prepared on the basis of several documents. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the argument of the learned Counsel of the complainant in this behalf. The Note dated 22-4-1988 is on record. Now, in that Agenda-Note, it is stated that the Board had discussed about the construction of 11th Housing Scheme and it was decided to take up with Aurangabad Municipal Corporation about giving water supply to the above scheme. The meeting was held with the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad on 7-8-1988. The Superintending Engineer of Maharashtra Water Supply Sewerage Board also attended the meeting and informed that the work of laying of additional pipeline of 90 M.L.D. from Paithan to Aurangabad was already taken up and the scheme was likely to be completed within 2 years. So that should be sometime in April, 1990. It is also stated that the water would be available for scheme of 6000 tenements. Accordingly, the Resolution was passed that the CIDCO should take a note of response of the demand survey for housing conducted in September, 1987. So that should be sometime in April, 1990. It is also stated that the water would be available for scheme of 6000 tenements. Accordingly, the Resolution was passed that the CIDCO should take a note of response of the demand survey for housing conducted in September, 1987. The Board accorded its approval for the 11th Housing Scheme consisting of 3000 tenements in various categories as part of the 1st phase of the construction programme. The Committee was appointed for selection of suitable professional Architects/planners. In letter by Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, on 7-4-1988, it has been stated that the Corporation would be in a position to supply water to 6000 houses of the 11th Scheme after structures are completed in all respects and water supply pipe-lines are laid as per the norms prescribed by the Maharashtra Water Supply Sewerage Board. The scheme was likely to be completed after 2 years. There is another letter dated 15th April, 1988 by the Superintending Engineer, Environmental Engineering Circle, Aurangabad. The scheme was to be completed in the year 2001 2016 for catering to the need of population of 78,000/- by 2001 and 1,33,000 by 2016. 9.Another letter which was relied upon by the CIDCO, is letter dated 13-11-1992 to Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad wherein it was clearly stated that the tenements were constructed consisting of N-4-37, H.I.G.-I, 30 H.I.G.-II, 460 M.I.G.-II, 179 H.I.G.-I at N-2 and 590 L.I.G.-II and that the water should be released for which the cross-connection were prepared. This would show that by October, 1992, number of tenements were completed. The cross-connections were to be paid for on receipt of the Demand-Note. The CIDCO expressed its anxiety to give possession of tenements immediately; but certainly on receipt of the water. Now, this was the position in October/November, 1992. 10.The Note dated 22-10-1993 is a exhaustive note which takes into consideration all the factors which have contributed to the delay in giving the possession of the tenements. Briefly, stated, it is high-lighted that the Demand Survey Book was issued in September, 1987 and that the construction was expected to be completed within 2 1/2 years before monsoon of 1990. There were 5480 prospective buyers. But the scheme could be taken up only for 3000 numbers. The Board accorded its administrative approval on 12-5-1988. But as there was no guarantee of supply of drinking water, the construction had to go slow. There were 5480 prospective buyers. But the scheme could be taken up only for 3000 numbers. The Board accorded its administrative approval on 12-5-1988. But as there was no guarantee of supply of drinking water, the construction had to go slow. After firm assurance by the Municipal Corporation, concrete steps were taken on 12-5-1988. The H.U.D.C.O. actually issued the loan finance somewhere in January, 1991, for L.I.G.-I-2275, M.I.G.-II 474, M.I.G.-I 236, M.I.G.-II 30 = In all 3015. However, the progress could not be made. There was, however, opposition in the form of morchas and dharnas by the residents of N-5 where 3000 tenements had to be constructed. Hence the site had to be changed to N-2 where also similar resistance was offered. Part of M.I.G.-II and H.I.G. could be accommodated in that area. Here also, there was strong objection and hence the site had to be shifted to N-4 and N-2 at Mukundwadi. Long time was thus wasted due to the opposition of the local vested interest. Ultimately, other sites had to be approved and L.I.G.-I 590 tenements had to be relocated at Mukundwadi where the land had to be acquired. There was Court litigation and hence the lands were available only in April, 1990. Thus, there was clearly delay of 2 years and 8 months inspite of all efforts made by the CIDCO. However, as soon as the construction started, it was carried out to its end by September, 1992. But the handing over of the possession could not take place immediately because electrification work was not carried out by the M.S.E.B. in time. It should have gone hand in hand with the civil work by CIDCO. After long deliberations, M.S.E.B. agreed to supply 11 K.V. lines and transformer and rest of all the external electrical work had to be carried out departmentally by the CIDCO although it was not the responsibility of the CIDCO. The CIDCO has assumed this onerous responsibility for the first time as in all the schemes upto Xth Scheme, they were carried out by the M.S.E.B. 11.The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation also backed out on its assurance regarding water supply. It was only in the last week of September, 1993, it agreed to connect the main drinking water supply lines to CIDCO that too after much haggling. It is only thereafter that the allotment-letters could be issued and this process started from September, 1993. 12. It was only in the last week of September, 1993, it agreed to connect the main drinking water supply lines to CIDCO that too after much haggling. It is only thereafter that the allotment-letters could be issued and this process started from September, 1993. 12. We may here indicate that initially only demand survey was made and that did not impose any legal obligation on CIDCO to complete construction by monsoon of 1990. Everything depended on the response from applicants, the co-operation from Financial Institution, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and M.S.E.B. Any lapse on any of them could delay the implementation of the scheme and CIDCO could not be blamed for that. 13.Regarding the increased prices, it is pointed out that the price consideration is not within the jurisdiction of the District Forum. But all the same, it is a universal phenomenon that the prices of building material are rising with the passage of time every year. Hence 15% rise had to be imposed on the applicants. However, the CIDCO was sympathetic towards the applicants because of the delay caused due to external circumstances. CIDCO by communication dated 12-10-1993 gave concessions to the tenement-holders in the following manner : (i) The share money was waived and the Society which should be formed may consider that issue. (ii) The price of Godrej lock was reduced from Rs. 80/- to Rs. 70/-. (iii) The first month of payment of MEI was postponed to 1-12-1993 from 1-10-1993 though the last date for taking possession remains unchanged i.e. 31-12-1993. (iv) The advance payment of service charges was waived and they were recoverable from 1-10-1993. (v) Further relief was also granted by reducing the cost of tenements. (vi) 1 to 3% contingency amount were waived. (vii) Over-head charges were brought down to 10% from 13%. Even the surcharge was reduced to 5% in the case of HIG tenements. It was further contended that the reduction in the final price in the case of LIG-I group was effected by Rs. 420/- per tenement. It is further contended that there was reduction ranging from 790/- Rs. to Rs. 2500/- and that the period of repayment of housing loan was extended to 15 years i.e. 180 months against 168 in the case of LIG, 138 in the case of MIG and 123 in the case of HIG. 420/- per tenement. It is further contended that there was reduction ranging from 790/- Rs. to Rs. 2500/- and that the period of repayment of housing loan was extended to 15 years i.e. 180 months against 168 in the case of LIG, 138 in the case of MIG and 123 in the case of HIG. 14.The above case made out by the CIDCO clearly shows that the delay was not on the part of the CIDCO, but the M.S.E.B. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation were instrumental to the delay. Without electricity and water, the CIDCO could not have delivered the possession. The situation became ripe on all these counts, only in September, 1993 and if that be so, there is no delay whatsoever in the allotment of tenements. 15.The District Forum has relied on the judgment of the State Commission in Appeal No. 830/93 arising out of C.No. 148/93 wherein the CIDCO was held guilty for delay. But, in that case, the date of delivery of possession was fixed and still there was delay. In this case, nowhere, we find that CIDCO gave a specific date for delivery of possession of the tenements to the applicants and this was naturally so because in the construction process, several other agencies were vitally involved. We find that the circumstances in this case are practically the same as the circumstances discussed in the judgment of the National Commission in Original Petition No. 273/93. 16.Now, so far as the deficiency of putting up the door is concerned, no specific argument is advanced by the CIDCO except that the payment towards door work was made only by the HIG-I type tenement holders. We find that the District Forum has on facts found that the door was to put up and hence awarded Rs. 1,000/- for all types of tenements, for the deficiency. We do not wish to tinker with that finding in respect of HIG-I tenements only as the HIG-I tenement holders have made payment for the door. Accordingly, we pass the following order : ORDER "The appeal is partly allowed. The order regarding payment of Rs. 1,000/- per tenement towards deficiency in service in respect of fixing of the door is maintained in respect of HIG-I tenements only. Rest of the order regarding payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- each, refund of interest, cost and payment of Rs. The order regarding payment of Rs. 1,000/- per tenement towards deficiency in service in respect of fixing of the door is maintained in respect of HIG-I tenements only. Rest of the order regarding payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- each, refund of interest, cost and payment of Rs. 1,000/- per tenement towards deficiency in respect of fixing of doors in the tenements except in HIG-I type tenement is set aside. No order as to cost." In these terms, the appeal stands disposed of. Appeal partly allowed. *****