BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 179/2004
Date of presentation: 05.05.2004
Date of decision: 31.07.2009
Shri Ravi Bhushan, S/o Sh. Lekh Raj Sood,
R/o Flat No. 6, Block 15, Phase III,
Below BCS, New Shimla.
… Complainant.
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Housing Board,
Through its CEO-Cum -Secretary,
Nigam Vihar, Shimla-2, H.P.
…Opposite Party
For the complainant: Mr. Arun Negi, Advocate vice
Mr. Pramod Thakur, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate vice
Mr. G.S. Rathour, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the OPs-Board. The complainant avers that he took a flat, as, detailed in the cause tile of the complaint, under partially self finance scheme from the OP on lease at Rs.7.4 lacs, whereas, he was made to pay Rs.10.25 lacs, of which possession was given to him on 08.05.2002, vide possession letter Annexure C-1. He further avers that at the time of taking the possession, some visible defects were observed by the complainant, and pointed out to the officer of the OP, which defects have not been rectified by the OP so far. The complainant further proceeded to aver that he could not shift to the aforesaid flat immediately after taking possession due to the fact that the OP did not rectify the defects as pointed out by him and was forced to live in the fear of constant danger to the life of his family. It is averred that there are material defects and deficiencies which cannot be removed, as such, the OP is liable to make him compensation. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OP, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objection regarding limitation. On merits, it is admitted that the flat in dispute under 9th Partially Self Financing Scheme below BCS, New Shimla was allotted to the complainant, possession whereof was taken over by him on 08.05.2002. It is denied that sub-standard material was used in the construction of the flat and that the flat was not in a habitable condition. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.
3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
5. The complainant alleges that the defects in the construction in the property as allotted to him by the OP, which is detailed in paragraph 3 of the complaint. The OP contests the grievance of the complainant on the ground that at the time of taking possession by the complainant from the OP, he had executed Annexure R-2 whose perusal divulges the fact that he had accepted the premises as allotted to him, to be, in, a habitable condition, as also, of, defects as noticed having come to be rectified by the OPs. Hence, in the light of Annexure R-2, he is estopped from ventilating the grievance, now, as urged before this Forum. Since, the OP has not been able to rebut photographic evidence or Annexure C-4, which, is, the technical report of an expert, detailing the fact of existence of defects in workmanship and also, in, the material used by the OP, in, the premises allotted to the complainant, hence, for non-rebuttal of the photographic evidence, as well , as, Annexure C-4, the OP, hence, is, rather estopped on the strength of Annexure R-2, in contending that, no, defects in the construction or in the material used by the OPs, in the premises allotted to the complainant exist. More so, when, the compelling circumstance prevalent, at, the stage of the making of the Annexure R-2, being, the one of his being in dire need of the premises, is, apparent.
6. Consequently, while paying reverence to Annexure C-4, as well, as, to the photographic evidence depicting the existence, of, defects in construction material, as also, highlighting other shortcoming in the premises, allotted to the complainant by the OP, we are, of, the view that the OPs be directed to comply with the recommendations made by the expert in Annexure C-4 within one month. Needless to say that the pecuniary amount as claimed by the complainant, from the OP, hence, need not to be ordered to be defrayed by the OPs. Hence, in the above terms, the complaint stands disposed of. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 31st day of July, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Karuna Machhan) (Charanjit Singh)
Member Member.