Back
CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Sharma, President and Miss Heena Thakkar, Member
C.G. HOUSING BOARD - Appellant
Versus
DHARMAPAL - Respondent
Appeal No. FA/14/07 - Decided on 31.5.2014 /P
Decided on : 31-05-2014
Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate, for the Respondent
Deficiency in service leading to mental agony justifies compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Defective Construction - 1986 Act, Section 15 - Summary: The court discussed the complaint filed under Section 12 of the 1986 Act, where the appellant was directed to pay compensation for defective construction. The court found that the respondent suffered mental agony due to the appellant's deficiency in service, and upheld the compensation awarded by the District Forum.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent purchased a house from the appellant, but found the construction to be of below standard quality. Despite complaints and notices, the appellant did not address the defects, leading the respondent to file a consumer complaint seeking compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's failure to address the construction defects amounted to deficiency in service, causing mental agony to the respondent. The court upheld the compensation awarded by the District Forum.
Issues: Defective construction, deficiency in service, compensation for mental agony
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's failure to address the construction defects despite complaints constituted deficiency in service, justifying the compensation awarded to the respondent.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, upholding the compensation awarded to the respondent.
ORDER
Mr. Justice R.S. Sharma, President - This appeal has been filed by the appellant (O.P.) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (henceforth called "1986 Act") against the order dated 17.12.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No. 135/2012, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant (respondent) under Section 12 of the 1986 Act, has been partly allowed and the appellant (O.P.) has been directed to pay Rs. 62,000 to the respondent (complainant) and also pay a sum of Rs.20,000 towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 towards Advocate fee and cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case before the District Forum are that the complainant/respondent had purchased a house M.I.G. Duplex 123, Phase 4, Kabir Nagar, Raipur from the appellant (O.P.) and possession order was issued by the appellant (O.P.) in favour of the respondent (complainant) on 24.7.2010. On the basis of said possession order, the respondent (complainant) took possession of the said house on 19.8.2010. Prior to taking possession of the said house the respondent (complainant) inspected the said house and found that the construction of the house is below standard quality. He made complaint to the appellant (O.P.) on 19.8.2010. The respondent (complainant) wrote letters to the appellant (O.P.) on 22.1.2011, 7.5.2011 and 23.7.2011. The house of the respondent (complainant) was inspected by the appellant (O.P.) on 15.11.2010 in which the complaint regarding the construction, is confirmed, which is from Sl. No. l to 16 but in spite of it, the complaint of the respondent (complainant) was not redressed by the appellant (O.P.). Then again, the respondent (complainant) made complaint vide letter dated 3.12.2011 but even then his complaint was not redressed. The respondent (complainant) sent notice to the appellant (O.P.) through Advocate on 13.3.2012 which was received by the appellant (O.P.) on 19.3.2012, but in spite of it, neither the appellant (O.P.) replied the notice nor redressed the complaint of the respondent (complainant). Therefore, the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs. 62,000 which is the cost of the repairing of the house, a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards compensation for mental agony, cost of litigation.
3. The appellant (O.P.) resisted the complaint and refuted the allegation levelled by the respondent (complainant) against the appellant (O.P.). The appellant (O.P.) pleaded in the written statement that the respondent (complainant) took possession of the said house on 19.8.2010 in good condition and he himself certified that when he took possession of the house, the same was in good condition. Appellant (O.P.) further pleaded that the appellant (O.P.) has not committed any deficiency in service, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, learned District Forum partly awarded the complaint and awarded compensation in favour of the respondent (complainant) as mentioned in paragraph No. l of this order.
5. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the appellant (O.P.) argued that respondent/complainant took possession of the house in good condition and thereafter the complainant made complaint to the appellant regarding defects in the house. He submitted that the site report-cum-repair estimate submitted by the complainant is not reliable. The said site report-cum-repair estimate was given by one Engineer Shri A.S. Agrawal, but it does not bear date and the said estimate cannot be considered for deciding the matter. The construction of the house was done as per approved norms and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant (O.P.).
6. Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondent (complainant) supported the im
