National Consumer Disputes Redressal
1. Malkiat Singh vs . Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Housefed ... on 11 July, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION
PETITION NO. 2569
OF 2012
(From the order dated 18-05-2012 in First Appeal No. 1147 of 2008 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab)
1.
MALKIAT
SINGH
S/o Shri
Karam Singh
R/o Flat No. 521, 6th
Floor, Housefed Flats Complex, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar,
Block-E,
Ludhiana-141013
Punjab
.... Petitioner/Complainant
Versus
1. SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH
NAGAR, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, CO-OPERATIVE HOUSR BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.
Through President,
Block-E,
Ludhiana
Punjab
2. The Managing
Director,
Housefed
Punjab, SCO No. 150-152, Sector 34-A,
Chandigarh
Punjab
3. The Registrar
Co-Operative Societies,
Punjab, Chandigarh
Respondents /Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.
CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner
: In person
PRONOUNCED ON
11th JULY, 2013
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 18-05-2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1147 of 2008 Malkiat Singh Vs. The Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Housefed Complex, Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. & Ors., by which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint, was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was allotted flat no. 521 on 6th floor by opposite party no. 1/respondent no. 1 and possession was delivered to the petitioner on 30-04-2002 after receiving entire amount of Rs.11.90 lakhs. Respondent no. 1 charged additional amount of Rs.1,000/- for creation of common fund which was to be used or maintenance of common services/area. It was also mentioned in the Brochure that monthly instalments as decided by opposite part no. 1 shall be payable by the members of this society for maintaining, regulating common areas and services. Petitioner was under
impression that respondent no. 1 shall provide all amenities. It was further alleged that there was seepage of water in the lintel roof, which was brought to the notice of opposite parties. Many cracks developed in the walls. It was further alleged that respondent no. 1 was to provide two lifts and generator set for the use of allottee members. Complainant never withheld monthly payment of maintenance but resolution was passed by opposite party no. 1 that in case flatowner failed to pay monthly water supply charges, his connection would be disconnected and complainants water connection would be discontinued. It was further alleged that only one lift was provided against provision of two lifts. Alleging deficiency on the part of respondents, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Complaint was not admitted against respondents no. 2 & 3.
Opposite party no. 1/respondent no. 1contested complaint before District Forum denied allegations of deficiency and further submitted that complaint is time barred and complainant himself is in arrears of maintenance charges, hence complaint be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint against which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard petitioner in person at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned petitioner submitted that as per Brochure, two lifts, generator set has not been provided and as there are many defects in the construction, which have not been removed by opposite parties; even then learned District Forum has committed error in dismissing the complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing the appeal, hence revision petition be admitted.
5. Admittedly, possession was delivered to the petitioner on 30-04-2002 whereas complaint was filed before District Forum on 08-09-2005. Complaint should have been filed within a period of two years from getting possession of the flat regarding any defect in the construction or deficiency in the services. As complaint has been filed after almost three years and four months and no application has been moved for condonation of delay, complaint being time barred is not maintainable and learned District Forum has not committed error in dismissing the complaint and learned State Commission has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.
6. As far as defects in the flats are concerned, as per delivery possession receipt, flat was in good condition. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that construction of flat was defective. As far as providing two lifts and generator set, petitioner could not place any document to substantiate that respondent was to provide two lifts and generator set for inhabitants of the building. Learned State Commission and District Forum rightly observed that as petitioner himself was defaulter in making payment of maintenance charges, petitioner cannot claim benefit of service of lift, etc. to be provided by the respondent. It cannot be expected from the respondent to maintain all the services without contribution towards maintenance charges being made by flat owners and in such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
7. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference and revision petition, is liable to be dismissed at admission state.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
..
(K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER aj