State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Khanna Builders & Dev. vs P.D.Bakhale on 13 July, 2022
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.869 / 2017.
1.M/s Khanna Builders and Developers, Through Proprietor B. S. Khanna, s/o J. S. Khanna, Sukh Sagar Motors, Narmada Road, Jabalpur (M.P.)
2. President, Jai Grih Nirman Sahakari Maryadit Society, Sukh Sagar Valley, Gwari Ghat Road, Jabalpur (M.P.).
3. M/s ISO 9001-2000 and ISO-14001-2004 Through M/s Khanna Builders and Developers, Sukh Sagar Valley, Gwari Ghat Road, Jabalpur (M.P.). .... APPELLANTS.
Versus Mr. P. D. Bakhale, s/o Shri (Late) D. R. Bakhale, R/o H. No.44, Sunflower, Sukh Sagar Valley, Gwari Ghat Road, Jabalpur (M.P.). .... RESPONDENT. As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of ORDER Order 13.07.2022 Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri O. P. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard.
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arises out of the order dated 4.4.2017 passed by the District Consumer
- 2- Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur No.1 (for short the 'District Commission') in CC No.115/2016.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent had filed a consumer complaint against the appellants alleging therein that a House No.44, Sunflower Sukhsagar Valley, Jabalpur was purchased by him. According to him the construction of the house was found to be of a poor quality. The plaster of the house was cracked and fallen, roof of it started leaking. As a result alleging deficiency in service the respondent issued a notice to the appellants and filed the complaint as aforesaid.
3. The District Commission issued notice of the complaint to the appellants, but the appellants remained ex-parte and could not file reply.
4. The District Commission after considering the evidence led by the respondent - complainant allowed the complaint and issued following directions :
ß¼v½ vukosnd Øa-&1 o 2 la;qDrr% vFkok i`Fkd&i`Fkd vkns'k fnuakd ls nks ekg ds Hkhrj ifjoknh ds iz'uxr~ edku ds lEiw.kZ Nr dh ejEer ,oa nhokjksa ds IykLVj dh ejEer xq.koRrk ds vk/kkj ij fu%'kqYd djk;saA ¼c½ vukosnd Øa-&1 ,oa 2 ds }kjk ;fn mijksDr nks ekg dh le;kof/k esa vkns'k dh dafMdk ¼v½ dk ikyu ugha fd;k tkrk gS] rc ifjoknh Lo;a iz'uxr~ edku ds Nr ,oa nhokjksa ds IykLVj dh ejEer djk;s rFkk mlesa gq;s O;; ds fcy vukosnd Øa-&1 o 2 ds le{k izLrqr djs] ftudk Hkqxrku fcy izkfIr fnuakd ls vukosnd Øa-&1 o 2 la;qDrr% vFkok i`Fkd&i`Fkd ifjoknh dks ,d ekg dh le;kof/k esa djsAa &3& ¼l½ vukosnd Øa-&1 o 2 la;qDrr% vFkok i`Fkd&i`Fkd ifjoknh dks ekufld ihM+k gsrq 5]000@& ¼ikap gtkj½ :i;s rFkk okn O;; gsrq 2]000@& ¼nks gtkj½ :i;s Hkh vkns'k fnuakd ls nks ekg dh le;kof/k esa vnk djsA ¼n½ ;fn mijksDr nks ekg dh fofgr le;kof/k esa vkns'k dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k] rks vukosnd Øa-&1 o 2 la;qDrr% vFkok i`Fkd&i`Fkd ifjoknh dks mijksDr leLr jkf'k;ksa ij] vkt vkns'k fnuakd ls nks ekg dh le;kof/k O;rhr gksus ds izFke fnol ls ysdj jkf'k vnk;xh fnuakd rd dh le;kof/k rd 10 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt Hkh vnk djsxa As Þ
5. Feeling aggrieved the appellants had filed this appeal.
6. Having gone through the impugned order and having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that before the District Commission the respondent - complainant did not lead any expert evidence in regard to the allegations about the poor construction quality of the house in question and about its condition and the fact that the appellants are contending that the house in question was not sold by them to the respondent, but was sold by one Akash Nichlani and as such there was no privity of contract between the appellants and the respondent - complainant, we are of the view that in order to find out the correct facts and in order to get the matter decided appropriately it would be proper to set- aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Commission for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.
- 4-
5. The parties are at liberty to file further evidence in the matter within the time as may be fixed by the District Commission.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 29.8.2022.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (S. S. Bansal)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke