IMPORTANT POINT
Quantum of compensation must be commensurate with deficiencies in service.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 against the Order dated 30.11.2016 passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.1057 of 2013.

2. The brief facts as per the Respondent No.1/Complainant are that Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 invited applications from people for allotment of flats in its society, assuring better facilities and other amenities, as per the brochure. The said project was shown to be duly approved by Respondents No.2 and 3 and Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3. The Respondent No.1 entered into agreement with Petitioner on 27.12.2010 for purchase of two bed rooms flat no.43-A, 4th floor and took the possession, vide letter dated 01.09.2011. The sale deed was got registered by the Petitioner in his favour on 25.01.2012, for which he paid Rs.27,000/- as maintenance charges thereof to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 came to know within 3-4 months after taking possession that there were deficiencies in the quality of construction and work and the entire building looked dilapidated and its construction looked as if it was many years old. He informed the Petitioner about the deficiency, but to no effect. The discrepancies in the construction were as below:

(a) The building had been raised on RCC pillars on the ground floor. The roof of the building on the ground floor was bent in U-shape. The bend portion had been supported with temporary support of bricks on different points and could collapse at any time.

(b) There were a number of cracks in the joints as well as in the middle portion of the walls and roofs.

(c) Sufficient lifts had not been provided as promised. The area of the lifts had been left open and not covered with any preventive sheet.

(d) Steel chaukhats had not been provided. The wooden chaukhats fixed were of very inferior quality and fixed in a bad manner.

(e) Electricity supply had not been sanctioned by OP no.4. Electricity was being supplied by OP no.1 by charging rates at its own will.

(f) Separate wiring for installation of inverters had not been provided. The occupants had got the wiring at their own costs.

(g) Modular kitchen had not been proved as promised in brochure. This was pointed out at the time of taking possession, OP no.1 had again promised but till date it had not been provided.

(h) As promised, pure and clean water and alternative arrangement for supply of water in case of any defect, had not been provided.

(i) Fire safety arrangement had not been provided. Only the pipes had been installed but no connection had been given for the fire safety equipment.

(j) OP No.1 had constructed the sixth floor by putting temporary sheets and had sold the same to some persons without approval as the map was approved only upto the 5th floor. The residents brought this illegality to the notice of OP nos.2 and 3, but no fruitful result came out.

(k) OP no.1 did not do texture paint on the walls despite promise.

(l) Street lights in the open space and parking place had not been provided and only poles had been installed.

(m) The boundary wall of the society was of very low height and any outsider was could step in and cause harm to the residents.

(n) The covered area of the flat was less than that of mentioned in the brochure.

(o) OP No.1 charged Rs.27,000/- at the time of possession but it failed to give maintenance properly.

(p) The level of the society was low than the sewerage level of outside the society and dirty water came into the premises, which caused infection to the children and other persons.

(q) Power backup and elevators had not been provided.

(r) There was seepage and dampener in the walls and due to this distemper and paint of the walls had come out and started dropping.

(s) Floor tiles on the rear courtyard had not been fixed and at some of the places were lying bare and giving a dir