ORDER

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in FA no.869 of 2009.

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a retired employee of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and is a handicapped person. The employees of M P State Road Transport Corporation are not entitled for pension on retirement. Petitioner intended to settle down at Gwalior after his retirement. On 10.10.2002, the respondent, i.e., M P Housing Board (in short, ‘the Housing Board’) published an advertisement in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ for a housing society by name and style of ‘Darpan Enclave’ which was subsequently changed to ‘Madhav Rao Scindia Enclave’ without intimating the petitioner as well as other flat holders till date. The petitioner has alleged that the act of the Housing Board was malicious. The petitioner has stated that the petitioners had booked a flat in the said society by depositing the registration fees of Rs.85,000/- in the office of the Housing Board at Gwalior. The Housing Board had assured the petitioners that they will be providing high quality construction, open space, shopping mall and club house in the Society. The Housing Board collected varying amounts on various dates from the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that the petitioners has deposited the service tax too on the demands of the Housing Board, otherwise, failing which it was informed that they would cancel the registration of the petitioners.

3. On 17.01.2006, the Housing Board issued an allotment order in favour of the petitioners. Sale deed and lease agreement were executed on 10.05.2006 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Gwalior in respect of Flat no. SH/FF/25 for a consideration of Rs.8,78,756/- and lease rent was fixed at Rs.4624/- per annum for the land involved for 30 years. The respondent – Housing Board issued an order of possession no. 995 on 22.02.2007 and, accordingly, the petitioners took possession of the flat on 23.06.2007. However, petitioner states that they were shocked to see the quality of the construction as the flat was full of defects and with poor quality work. The petitioners immediately wrote complaint/ representation regarding the poor quality and defects in the construction of the said flat. The Housing Board orally assured the petitioners that it would rectify the defects in the flat; however, nothing has been done by the respondent – Housing Board. As there was no response forthcoming from the respondent – Housing Board, the petitioners sent a legal notice to the respondent – Housing Board, which was neither replied to or the defects repaired. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (in short, ‘the District Forum’) alleging deficiency in service by the respondent - Housing Board.

4. The respondent – Housing Board admitted in their reply before the District Forum that there were several defects in the flat and they were repaired at that time including several areas like service area, common area etc., in the flat total area. Respondent – Housing Board has admitted in their reply that the defects pointed on 30.08.2006 by the petitioners were repaired at that time and on 23.06.2007, the possession was handed over to the petitioners after their full satisfaction. The petitioners allege that the version of the respondent was not true because the petitioners have submitted a complaint/ representation regarding defects in the flat on the same day, i.e., 23.06.2007. On behalf of the Housing Board it has been argued that this Commission has limited jurisdiction in revisional matters in view of the concurrent findings of facts by the lower fora. It has been argued that the MP Land Development Rules do not apply in the case. It has also been argued that the p