IMPORTANT POINT
Reasoned order of State Commission must be upheld.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the impugned order dated 11.10.2010, passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short, ‘State Commission’) in (First Appeal No.145 of 2009).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant had purchased a row house from the Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1—Developer as per agreement dated 04.07.1996. The Petitioner stated that he had received the possession thereon on 24.08.1997. Thereafter, according to him, due to leakage, his furniture kept in the hall was damaged Further, the 1000 liter RCC Tank for water as per sanctioned plan was not provided and instead a 500 liter capacity tank was given. Earthing was not provided to the main electric connection and the area of row house was less by 325.56 sq. ft and the bathroom was also small. He further stated that on his request an Architect was appointed and his report was filed before the District Forum. The Petitioner/Complainant agreed with the findings in the report except for the area of the row house. The District Forum vide their order dated 19.12.2008 after hearing both the parties dismissed the consumer complaint holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Builder.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the Appeal, observed as under;

“4. As earlier recounted, an Architect was appointed to verify the grievances of the Complainant. Shri Jaideep Yargop was accordingly appointed and he produced the report to the Forum below. Except for the statement as to area mentioned in the report, rest of the part of the said report was accepted by the Complainant. Complainant did not file any counter evidence or laid any evidence on his part to show that the observations as to the actual area of the row house as made by Architect/Commissioner Shri Jaideep Yargop were incorrect. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disbelieve the report of said architect as to the actual area of the row-house and therefore, case of the Complainant that he had received less area of the row-house by 324.56 sq. ft. cannot be accepted and Complainant miserably failed to establish his case on this count.

5. Complainant also failed to establish by independent evidence to substantiate his other grievances. Therefore, we find no reason to take different view than what has been taken by the Forum below. Thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order:—

Order

1. Appeal stands dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.”

4. Hence, this Revision Petition.

5. I have heard Mr. B.S. Sharma, Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner and Mr. Rahul S. Gandhi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

6. Mr. B.S. Sharma, Amicus Curiae went through the facts of the case and contended that the possession of row-house was given to the Petitioner with a delay of six months. Further, the Court Commissioner had also pointed out some defects in row-house. The Petitioner had given his comments on the Court Commissioner’s report. While the Petitioner had accepted the finding of the inspection in the Court Commissioner’s Report he still had a grievance about the area of the row house and size of the toilet.

7. The Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded ex-parte. Mr. Rahul S. Gandhi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 stated that was no specific allegation against the Respondent No.2 and no specific prayer of relief sought against the Respondent No.2. The District Forum correctly recorded in their order that in the Complaint the Petitioner had not claimed any relief against the Respondent No.2-i.e. Dehuroad Cantonment Board, Pune. In the said Complaint, the Petitioner had not mentioned that he had paid any money to the Respondent No.2 for hiring its services. Consequentially, Petitioner