Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.

Present:- 

          For the appellants         :     Sh. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate
          For the respondent         :     Sh. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for
                                           Sh. Vikas Sharma, Advocate

PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the appellants-PUDA (hereinafter called 'the appellants') against the order dated 8.3.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called 'the respondent') was allowed by the District Forum.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had purchased MIG flat No. 626 from the appellants on 15.6.1998 after making full payment. The respondent had leveled allegations against the appellant that all the flats located in the vicinity were in a very bad condition as well as flat No. 626 and he pointed out the defects to the Estate Officer, PUDA, who vide letter directed the SDO to remove these defects but nothing was done. Thereafter, the respondent met the S.D.O. alongwith letter dated 13.10.1998 and asked about the letter written by the Estate Officer, who replied to him that there was a shortage of funds as such, they were unable to remove the defects. The respondent informed about the same to the Estate Officer, who had not replied. Thereafter again he had written a letter dated 3.5.1999 to the Estate Officer, which was forwarded by him to the concerned Engineer of the PUDA and the respondent also explained the problem at the spot. On the basis of letter dated 1.7.1999, Divisional Engineer had written letters to their subordinates for removal of the defects but nothing was done. Again he had written a letter dated 24.12.1999 to the PUDA and stated that he was being physically, mentally and financially harassed by your office and requested to remove the defects immediately. He had written number of letters to the PUDA authorities but all in vain.

3. Estate Officer, PUDA had written letters to the Divisional Engineer (Civil) and other authorities in which he had told to their subordinates that it is disgusting/surprising that the applicant(respondent) had written letters for the last two years for rectifying the defects in his flat but the position was as it is. It was also pleaded that news was published in the newspaper for non-removable of the defects. The respondent was called in the office of Addl. Estate Officer on 25.5.2002 where he had applied for re-allotment of another plot No. 725 instead of 626 but they had refused to accept the offer of the respondent vide letter dated 23.10.2002. It was pleaded that the defects pointed out by him were not removed till date as such, the complaint was filed on the ground that the appellants were deficient in service and prayed that the amount paid for the purchase of flat may be refunded to the respondent with 18% interest and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was also prayed.

9. There is no dispute between the parties that MIC flat No. 626 was allotted to the respondent vide letter No. 137 dated 30.4.1998 on completion of the formalities by the respondent vide letter dated 1318-22 dated 26.6.1998 possession slip was issued in the name of the respondent. The respondent had not taken the possession of the same on the ground that there were defects in the construction. The Estate Officer vide letter dated 20.5.1998 directed the Technical Wing of the appellants for the removal of the defects but all in vain. Again the Estate Officer had written a letter Ex. C-3 dated 21.8.1998 to the Divisional Engineer, PUDA and the Sub Divisional Engineer, PUDA by which the above authorities were directed to remove the defects as pointed by the respondent but nothing was done by the Divisional Engineer as well as Sub Divisional Engineer, PUDA. After that so many letters were written by the respondent to the appellants for the removal of the defects in the flat allotted to him but the appellants failed to remove the same. Ultimately, the respondent had written letter to the appellants for the change of flat No. 626-GF to 725 but the request of the respondent was declined by the appellants vide letter Ex. C-26 dated 23.10.2002.