JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, President :- The above three appeals have been filed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, dated 24.12.1999, whereby the opposite party in the complaint of Shri Varinder Kumar Garg, namely, the Financial Commissioner-cum-Administrative Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of the Housing and the Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Housing Board both at Shimla have been made jointly and .severally liable to compensate the complainant for the deficient service in the case of the flat allotted to him by the H.P. Housing Board so that he can reconstruct, remodify, replace the structural material and thereby remove the defects making the premises habitable. Furthermore, they have been extent of Rs. 50,000/- to him as well as litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-. In addition, the HP. Housing Board through its Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer has been ordered to hold an enquiry in person, look into the matter and fasten the liability on any of the officials from Junior Engineer to Executive Engineer who was/were at the relevant time incharge of the construction, in question. After the conclusion of the enquiry, a direction has been issued that the liability shall be fastened and the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from them after having been paid to the complainant, within the stipulated period i.e. 15 days from the date of the impugned order. The enquiry has been directed to be concluded within one month and the recovery of the amount is to be made from the officers/official concerned under intimation to the learned Forum below. 2. The complainant moved the Consumer Court on the ground that he was allotted and handed over the possession of a house under MIG-ll/97 category at Baddi, District Solan, on 8.10.1992 for a consideration of Rs. 1,75,866/- by the Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, HP. Housing Board, Nigam Vihar, Shimla. On taking possession he found the premises to be full of glaring defects and sub-standard construction going to the extent of structural flaws which were pointed out by him at the outset in writing at the time of taking delivery thereof. Since his pleas for rectifying these defects of grave nature were not heeded by the HP. Housing Board, he had to file the complaint resulting in the impugned order. Being dis-satisfied with the compensation awarded, he has filed the second appeal. Since his pleas for rectifying these defects of grave nature were not heeded by the HP. Housing Board, he had to file the complaint resulting in the impugned order. Being dis-satisfied with the compensation awarded, he has filed the second appeal. One Umesh Kumar, to whom reference has been made in the impugned order, has also come up on appeal within the third appeal. Since all these three appeals arise out of the same common order of the learned Forum below, they have been disposed of by this common judgment and order by us. 3. A bare perusal of the impugned order is an eye opener to the method and manner in which the HP. Housing Board has been taking the allottees under its various construction schemes for a big ride. We do not propose to be repetitive in the matter and the facts can be gleaned from impugned order itself, which is not only well reasoned, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, a hard hitting order which deserved to be passed in the present case. 4. The inspection report of the Senior Architect (S) of the HP. Housing Board, Shimla, dated 5.7.1992, which is on the record, shows that the complainant of this case was short changed in the matter of allotment of the premises, in question, to him by the Housing Board. In a nut-shell what he said report discloses is that there were serious and possibly incapable of being rectified defects in the roof of the said dwelling especially in the roof of drawing room and bedroom, defective" flooring and defective wood work. Not only that, during the proceedings in the three appeals before this Commission, it has transpired that instead of complying with directions contained in para- 26 of the impugned order, i.e. ordering to hold enquiry in person by the Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer of the HP. Housing Board and the further direction flowing therefrom, the said enquiry was put in cold-storage and no action appears to have been taken against the persons/officials responsible for three glaring defects of the premises-cum-dwelling handed over to the complainant on 8.10.1992 at Baddi. Housing Board and the further direction flowing therefrom, the said enquiry was put in cold-storage and no action appears to have been taken against the persons/officials responsible for three glaring defects of the premises-cum-dwelling handed over to the complainant on 8.10.1992 at Baddi. It may be stated here that during the pendency of these appeals, this Commission had passed an interim order dated 11.5.2000 to the effect that the enquiry in consequence of the directions contained in the impugned order should continue, but the same Would be subject to the decisions in these appeals. It is reflected in the subsequent order dated 18.5.2001 passed by us that on behalf of the Housing Board, its learned Counsel then made a statement that a fresh enquiry had been ordered by the Board by appointing one Shri P.C. Sandillya, Chief Engineer (D), HP. Public Works Department, Shimla. We had gone to observe in the said order dated 18.5.2001 that it appears that both the Housing Board as well as its Secretary-cum-Chief Executive Officer mere taking the orders passed by both the learned Forum below as well as this Commission very lightly and, prima facie, it appears that they were in no mood to comply with the directions issued in concluding para-26 of the impugned order, or even the directions by us in our detailed order dated 20.3.2001, whereby we had directed both of them submit a statutes report on the enquiry on the next date i.e. 18.5.2001. 5. It was in these circumstances that in the same order dated 18.5.2001, a notice was issued to the Secretary-cum-Chief Executive Officer of the HP. Housing Board to appear in person before this Commission on 22.6.2001 and show cause why the above orders were not being complied with. A further direction was also issued that original enquiry file of this matter should be produced before us on the said date i.e. 22.6.2001. On that date, the Chief Engineer Officer-cum-Secretary, Housing Board, Shimla, was present in person in response to the show cause notice issued to him, to which he also filed a reply. His counsel apprised this Commission of the background of the case as well as the current status of the enquiry which had been withdrawn from the previous incumbent and entrusted to the said Shri P.C. Sandiya who, however, had till that date, not conducted any proceedings. His counsel apprised this Commission of the background of the case as well as the current status of the enquiry which had been withdrawn from the previous incumbent and entrusted to the said Shri P.C. Sandiya who, however, had till that date, not conducted any proceedings. It was then that a dramatic offer was made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Housing Board that in order to being this unfortunate litigation to a close in an amicable manner, the Board was prepared to refund the amount deposited by the allottees alongwith 18% interest for which time of three months was requested. Since this offer appeared to be acceptable to the complainant Shri Varinder Kumar Garg, who was also present in person on 22.6.2001, .accepting the same to be a bona fide offer, the time of three months as prayed as allowed to do the needful and matter was adjourned to 25.9.2001. 6. On the said date, it was revealed that instead of acting upon its own offer, an application was submitted on behalf of the Housing Board for permission to withdraw the same. The reasons as contained in that application for withdrawing the said offer was that in a meting of the Board of Directors of the HP. Housing Board held on 13.9.2001, the offer was found to be unacceptable and was rejected by a resolution. In these circumstances, at the request made on behalf of the learned Counsel of the Housing Board, the matter was adjourned to 28.11.2001. On that date, it was again adjourned to 4.12.2001, on which date, the hearing was concluded. 7. The above detailed narration of facts would clearly go to show the extent to which a semi-Government organisation like the H.P. Housing Board has gone in the present case, whereby its conduct qua the complainant is to say the least re-apprehensible. Not only that, the chronology of proceedings before this Commission during the pendency of these appeals clearly indicates that it has been playing ducks and drakes with us also. This obviously would give rise to drawing all adverse inferences against it. Be it stated here that the complainant was permitted to file written arguments by our order dated 25.9.2001 to which written reply has also been filed by the Housing Board. 8. This obviously would give rise to drawing all adverse inferences against it. Be it stated here that the complainant was permitted to file written arguments by our order dated 25.9.2001 to which written reply has also been filed by the Housing Board. 8. In fairness to the Housing Board, we may notice briefly the submissions made on its behalf by its learned Counsel before us. He had laid particular stress on the ground of limitation by referring to the reply filed to the complaint before the learned Forum below. According to the objection taken therein,, the conveyance deed in respect of the premises, in question, was executed by the complainant as far back as 7.12.1997, whereas the complaint was filed on 23.7.1998 i.e. well within the period of imitation of two years. However, a perusal of the contents of the complaint would show that on noticing the hopeless and thoroughly sub-standard construction as well as the poor quality material used for the premises allotted and handed over to him, he moved heaven and earth to get redress from the Housing Board. Reference in this connection may be made to the contents of para-6 onwards of the complaint, which discloses a tortuous history of correspondence between the parties, copies of which have also been annexed with the complaint. This correspondence went on upto the end of the year 1997 ultimately a legal notice was served by the complainant which led to the offer of the Housing Board to exchange his defective House with No. 86 or 383. On inspection of both these units, the complainant is stated to have found them in no way better than the defective unit allotted to him. Annexure-P with the complaint, which is dated 22.4.1998, is a letter whereby the Housing Board has declined the request of the complainant for allotment of any of the four houses from-S.No. 524 to 527. It is manifest from this, correspondence that the cause of action was a continuing one and the starting point of limitation would be the date of the letter of the Housing Board i.e. 22.4.1998 vide Annexure-P to the complaint, and the same having been filed within three months of the date of the said communication i.e. 23.7.1998, is well within limitation. 9. 9. Before parting with this judgment and order, we would be remiss in our judicial duties if we were not to observe that the very fact that during the pendency of these appeals, the Housing Board made on offer of refunding the cost of the house alongwith 18% interest, which was taken by us to be a bona fide one, and thereafter reseling from the same is highly unfortunate and speaks volumes of the manner in which the work and affairs of the H.P. Housing Board are being conducted by its various functionaries from the very top down to lowest rung. We can only strongly deprecate this state of affairs and express the pious hope that the Housing Board would see some light and improve its functioning in future, so that the trust reposed by the public at large is not betrayed. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal of the complainant Shri Varinder Kumar Garg is allowed. Consequently keeping in view the offer earlier made and after on withdrawn by the H.P. Housing Board it is made the basis for granting relief(s) to him. We, therefore, direct the H.P. Housing Board through its Secretary-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Nigam Vihar, Shimla, i.e. respondent No. 2 in the said appeal to refund the cost of the house, in question i.e. Rs. 1,75,866/- alongwith 18% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We would be also doing substantial justice by allowing compensation/damages to the complainant for the deep and acute harassment as well as mental torture caused to him by the long drawn out proceedings and the recalcitrant attitude and conduct of the H.P. Housing Board in the present case, as also the mannerism which it has conducted itself during the pendency of these appeals before us as narrated in detail here above. We, therefore, enhance the compensation as awarded in the impugned order i.e. Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-. We also award litigation expenses of the entire proceedings starting from the filling of the complaint till date, which we quantify at Rs. 5,000/-. This entire amount is directed to be paid by the H.P. Housing Board to the complainant Shri Varinder Kumar Garg within two months from today, failing which, it shall be liable to pay future interest @ 9% per annum on the said total amount till actual realization. 5,000/-. This entire amount is directed to be paid by the H.P. Housing Board to the complainant Shri Varinder Kumar Garg within two months from today, failing which, it shall be liable to pay future interest @ 9% per annum on the said total amount till actual realization. The appeal of the complainants Is disposed of accordingly, while the appeal of the H.P. Housing Board is consequence dismissed. 11. Insofar as the third appeal filed by Shri Umesh Kumar is concerned, he neither being a party to these proceedings, not having been held responsible till date for any apse in the matter by the H.P. Housing Board, his appeal is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal No. 41 allowed, others appeals dismissed.