Back
2011(3) CPR 142
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
S.C. Vyas, President and V.K. Patil, Member
M.A. Hussain —Appellant
versus
C.G. Housing Board through Commissioner and Anr. —Respondents
Appeal No. 224 of 2010
Decided on 22.2.2011
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant:Shri R.K. Shukla, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where newly constructed house delivered to the purchaser thereof was having certain defects, the respondent Housing Board would be liable to compensate the purchaser.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g) —Deficiency in service—Purchaser of house under Self Finance Scheme by the complainant—Delivery of possession given too late after lapse of three years—Quality of construction found to be poor—Agreement executed between the parties showing no specific period during which delivery of possession was to be given—Delivery given with less than two years from date of first payment of instalment and within 15 days of payment of last instalment—Appears to be reasonable—Admittedly certain defects in construction were there —Respondent directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the complainant as compensation. (Paras 15 t 18)
S.C. Vyas, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.3.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G) (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short) in Complaint Case No.230/2008, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, alleging deficiency in service in construction of a house under Self Finance Scheme by the respondents/Housing Board and claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for defective construction and also loss @ Rs. 1,800 per month for 20 months as well as Rs.50,000 as compensation for mental and physical agony, has been dismissed.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondents/C.G. Housing Board constructed few houses in Kabir Nagar Colony, Raipur developed by it. As per the Scheme, the houses were to be sold either under Self Finance Scheme or under Hire Purchase Scheme. The appellant herein, got himself registered for a house to be purchased under Self Finance Scheme. A tri-party agreement was executed between the appellant, Housing Board, as well as the Bank and thereafter instalments were paid by him as demanded by the Housing Board for construction of the house.
3. The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that in spite of payment of instalments in time, the Housing Board delivered the possession of the house much late after lapse of around three years. The quality of construction of house was very much poor and on account of poor construction quality and delayed delivery of possession of the house, he suffered financial loss as well as physical harassment, so alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board, consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum.
4. The complaint was contested by the Housing Board mainly on the ground that it committed no deficiency in service. The Lease Deed of the land was executed in time as and when amount was paid by the complainant and thereafter within reasonable time, the house was constructed and was delivered to the complainant. The quality of construction of the house was to the satisfaction of the complainant. The defects as pointed out by the complainant were also removed by the Housing Board. Thus, the Housing Board, was not liable for any compensation for the alleged deficiency in service.
5. District Forum agreed with the defence taken by the Housing Board and dismissed the complaint.
6. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
7. During the course of hearing of this appeal, it was pointed out by counsel for the appellant that some defects in the house were there and those defects were brought to the notice of the Housing Board. The Housing Board had also agreed to remove such defects and then time was given to both parties for that purpose and ultimately all defects, which were pointed out by the complainant, have been removed by the Housing Board to the satisfaction of the complainant.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that as per Agreement executed between the Housing Board, the Bank and the complainant, the possession of the house was to be delivered after depositing of first instalment. Such Agreement was executed on 28.12.2004 and the first installment was paid on 05/05/2005, but thereafter the construction of the house was not completed by the Housing Board and it’s possession was delivered to the complainant on 31.5.2007. Thus, for a period of two years, complainant was deprived of the house and so he is entitled of compensation for that period.
9. Learned counsel for the Housing Board refuted the aforesaid allegations and submitted that it was nowhere agreed between the parties that as to what would be the exact date of delivery of possession of the house to the complainant. He submitted that construction of the house was to be carried out by the Housing Board stage wise on payment of different instalments and as per initial Agreement, last installment was to be paid at the time of delive
