IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the principle that the High Court should not substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by authorities below unless the decision shocks the conscience of the Court.

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Orders dated 19.06.2023 and 06.09.2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Revision Petition No.3152/2018 whereby the Consumer Forum has allowed the revision petition in part in favour of the Petitioner herein by enhancing of the compensation from Rs.25,000/- awarded by the State Commission to Rs.3 lakhs.

2. A perusal of the material on record shows that attracted by an advertisement of the Respondent/Arihant Enterprises, the Petitioner herein booked a flat in one of its projects called `Arihant Sparsh' in Vashi, Navi Mumbai.

3. It is stated that an agreement for sale was entered into on 25.05.2010 and by May, 2011, that the Petitioner paid 97% cost of the flat. It is stated by the Petitioner that there was a delay in handing over possession and the possession was handed over to the Petitioner only on 11.04.2012. It is stated that after taking possession, the Petitioner pointed out various deficiencies in the flat. Since the deficiencies were not rectified, the Petitioner approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Thane, Navi Mumbai claiming compensation.

4. The District Forum vide Order dated 27.11.2015 found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent and directed the Respondent to provide all the facilities and to do work with its own expenses and also granted compensation @ Rs.25,000/- for the deficiency in service. It is pertinent to mention herein that the District Forum held that the material on record does not show that there was any delay in giving the possession of the flat but held that there was deficiency in the flat which was handed over. The District Forum observed as under:

"The Complainant has argued that the opposite party did not provide any facility in the Flat of the Complainant as was agreed and also the material used is sub standard. On the other hand the Argument made by opposite party is that there is no deficiency in service given by the opposite party. The report submitted by the Court Commissioner does not support the complaint complainant. From this it is proved that the Accusations made by Complainant are baseless the proofs submitted by both the party's are perused by the Forum. The Complainant with reference to various facilities has stated in this proof that opposite party did not provide the said facilities to the Complainant. The Complaint has stated that opposite party has used sub standard material while constructing the Flat of Complainant. The complainant has submitted certain Photographs of Flat in Documentation. It is important to note at this point that Mrs. Moushmi Sengupta was appointed as the Court Commissioner by Forum. She has submitted her Report to the Forum. It is observed from the Report that Complainant did not co-operate with the Court Commissioner when she was inspecting the Flat of the Complainant. The Complainant did not permit her to inspect the Flat. This way Complainant has himself prevented factual position of his Flat to be placed before the Forum and did not co-operate to bring forward the Facts. The Complainant has not produced any independent proof. To prove that opposite party has not provided any facility as agreed.

Even then as per the admission by the Opposition party in his statement, some minor work to be carried out in the Flat of the Complainant. The opposite party has submitted the photographs of the sample Flat -102. It can't be said on the basis of the written statement of the opposite party himself that they did the work of complainant's Flat and provided the facilities as per the sample Flat. It is responsibility of the opposite party to construct other Flats and provide facilities there in as per the sample Flat. But, as per the statement of opposite party itself certain other work yet to be completed in the Flat of the Complainant & opposite party is willing to do that. Taking into Account all this matter, the Forum has come