State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Executive Engineer & Anr. vs Ravi Agrawal on 1 November, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR(C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/13/250
Instituted on : 01.04.2013
1. Executive Engineer,
Chhattisgarh Housing Board,
Division No.1, Kabir Nagar,
Raipur (C.G.).
2. Estate Manager,
Chhattisgarh Housing Board,
Division No.1, Kabir Nagar,
Raipur (C.G.) . ... Appellants.
Vs.
Ravi Agrawal, S/o Late Satyaprakash Agrawal,
R/o : M.I.G. Duplex 165, Phase - 4, Kabir Nagar,
Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Vinod Deshmukh, for appellants.
Shri Manoj Prasad, for respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 01/11/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (henceforce called "1986 Act") against the order dated 14.03.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.83/2012, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent under Section 12 of the1986 Act, was partly allowed and OPs were directed to pay Rs.62,000/- to the complainant //2 // towards cost of repairing of the house along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13.03.2012 till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards Advocate fee and cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case before the District Forum are that the complainant/respondent had purchased a house M.I.G. Duplex 165, Phase 4, Kabir Nagar, Raipur from the OPs/appellants and possession order was issued by the OPs/appellants in favour of the complainant/respondent on 22.12.2010. On the basis of said possession order, the complainant/respondent took possession of the said house on 25.01.2011. After some days, the complainant/respondent noticed that the construction of the house is below standard quality and there were cracks in the walls, tiles were broken, quality of chaukhat is sub standard, boundary wall was found to be lowered and there was no proper place of pipes and platform in the kitchen and electric meter board was also damaged. Complainant / respondent sent written complaints to the appellants/OPs but appellant/OPs did not cure the defect and thus committed deficiency in service. Legal notice was sent by the complainant to the OPs. Despite of receiving legal notice, the OPs did not cure the defects in the house, hence he filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of the 1986 Act before the District Forum.
3. OPs/appellants resisted the complaint and refuted the allegation levelled by the complainant against them. The OPs/appellants averred //3 // in the reply that the complainant/respondent took possession of the said house on 25.01.2011 in good condition and he himself certified that when he took possession of the house, the same was in good condition. OPs further averred that they have not committed any deficiency in service, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint by the impugned order and directed the OPs to pay Rs.62,000/- to the complainant towards cost of repairing of the house along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13.03.2012 till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards Advocate fee and cost of litigation.
5. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellants/OPs argued that respondent/complainant took possession of the house in good condition and after a period of seven months, the complainant made complaint to the appellants regarding defects in the house. He submitted that the site report cum repair estimate submitted by the complainant is not reliable. The said site report cum repair estimate was given by one Engineer Shri A.S. Agrawal, but it does not bear date and the said estimate cannot be considered for deciding the matter. The construction of the house was done as per approved norms and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/OPs.
//4 //
6. Shri Manoj Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent / complainant supported the impugned order and submitted that it does not call any interference by this Commission.
7. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record of the District Forum, as well as impugned order.
8. The possession order was issued by the appellants/OPs in favour of the respondent/complainant on 22.12.2010 and the possession of the house was taken by the complainant on 25.01.2011 vide document Annexure A-2. In this document it has been mentioned that "I Shri Ravi Agrawal, taken over the possession of House No.MD -165 with all Internal Fittings in good condition all site clear and free from Encroachment at site on dated 25.01.2011 the construction work is satisfactory and I have no any complaint whatever."
9. It appears that the respondent/complainant took possession of the said house on 25.01.2011 after fully satisfying with the condition of the house and after a period of seven months he made first complaint to the appellants that there was seepage from the roof in rainy season and boundary was found to be lowered and thereafter again he made complaint on 05.09.2011 wherein he mentioned that marbles fitted in the house were broken and electric meter board was fallen out . Respondent/complainant also filed site report cum repair estimate of one Engineer Shri A.S. Agrawal (document Annexure A-9). In the said //5 // site report cum repair estimate, Shri A.S. Agrawal estimated the repairing charges of the house to the tune of Rs.62,000/-. In the said site report cum repair estimate, no reference no. and date has been mentioned. There is contradiction between the facts mentioned in the complaint and estimate given by Engineer Shri A.S. Agrawal, therefore, this site report cum repair estimate cannot be taken into considered for concluding that the house was not in good condition.
10. The respondent/complainant has referred about some discrepancies in construction of the house but the complainant did not prove above discrepancies by adducing reliable and cogent evidence.
11. After perusal of the record and impugned order of the District Forum, we are of the considered view that the respondent/complainant failed to prove that there were some discrepancies in the construction of house and appellants/OPs committed deficiency in service, therefore, the order passed by the District Forum, is not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed.
12. In view of aforesaid discussions, the appeal filed by the appellants succeeds and is allowed and impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, is dismissed. There is no order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/11/2013 /11/2013