Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Basant Kumar Katariya (Jain) and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Angarak Dev Deshmukh – Respondent
Revision Petition No.3168 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 01/10/2015 in Appeal No. 177/2015 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 5.12.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] – Revision – Services – Allotment of Flat/Plot – Delayed Possession – Concurrent findings – Non-interference by National Commission – It is clear from perusal of case that the non-applicants had not completed the construction work during the period of three years after receiving so fat hard earned money of complainant, on the other hand as per para 8 of complaint promised of completing the construction work within one year after taking Rs.7,00,000 but that too was not done – Otherwise, the non-applicants in their defence would have certainly produced phonographs of construction work – In these circumstances, it is proved that non-applicants had done incomplete construction and used inferior quality material in the construction, otherwise they would have certainly produced evidence in rebuttal of Annexure-18 Certificate – When someone invest his hard earned money to huge extent in building his house, he nurtures this dream that he would spend his hard earned money to get house within prescribed time limit and when non-applicants have shown this dream to customer that they would build and provide house to him, then it was the duty of non-applicants that when the complainant has invested so huge money for house, the construction of same was to be completed by them within prescribed timed limit – The State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we find no reason to interfere with its findings – Petition dismissed. [Paras 5 to 13]
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member—The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 01.10.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 177/2015 in which order dated 10.03.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 311/2013 was challenged.
2. While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Parties(OPs) were Appellants before the State Commission and OPs before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 15.06.2016. Parties filed Written Arguments on 21.06.2021 & 12.04.2023 (Petitioners) and 10.05.2023 respectively.
3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -
The complainants purchased land admeasuring 2580 sq.ft. in Rishab Nagar, Kasarideeh, Durg. The father of the complainant and and attorney Sh. Mohit Kumar Deshmukh entered into an oral agreement for construction of house at ground floor and first floor @900/- per sq.ft. on the plot of complainant and assured the delivery within three years’ time period on the condition of using high quality building construction material and providing the said house by using high quality material with all necessary fittings etc. in the entire house. The complainant paid Rs.25,14,000/- to the OPs between 04.07.2008 to 17.12.2008 in compliance of the said oral agreement. At the time of making the payment, it was verbally informed by the complainant that the built up area of house to be built would be 2600 sq.ft. comprising of ground floor and first floor, accordingly, the total construction cost of Rs.23,40,000/- and additional cost of Rs.1,74,000/- for false ceiling in entire house. The OPs received Rs.15,14,000/- under receipts, before commencement of construction work. Despite, receiving the payment, the OPs breached the terms of agreement and did not complete the construction work of house within the stipulated period of three years and material used in the work has been sub-standard and of highly inferior quality. Besides this, the OPs have reduced the width of road in front of plot as shown in the lay out provided to the complainant and constructed temple against the rules in said Rishab Nagar. The complainant sent legal notice through his Advocate on 15.10.2011. The OPs replied to the legal notice on 19.11.2011 stating therein that the cost of construction work of house being executed on the plot of complainant is Rs.47,00,000/- and construction was stopped as a result of non-payment of the said amount. The complainant met with the OPs in their office and raised objection regarding the amount of Rs.47,00,000/- as cost of construction of house and told them to retain the cost of construction of house as per oral agreement at Rs.900/- per sq.ft. of built up area and asked the OPs to fulfil their promise/undertaking to remain firm on that which facts were admitted by OPs. However, the OPs stated that due to hike in building construction material cost will be paid by the complainant and after admission of the complainant, the construction work was started. On the assurances by the OPs, the complainant paid Rs.7,00,000/- on 29.08.2012, over and above Rs.25,14,000/-, total comes to Rs.32,14,000/-, that the OPs would complete the construction within one year, by using high quality building material in construction, all furniture and other fittings, tiles, painting, polishing, false ceiling work, UPVC windows and Railing etc. Despite lapse of one year, the construction has not been completed
Absence of Evidence – In the absence of evidence produced by the complainant in the form of terms of contract entered into between the parties, bills for such alleged items procured in excess, and ev....
The National Commission emphasized its limited revisional jurisdiction, requiring clear jurisdictional errors for interfering with concurrent findings of fact from lower forums.
National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence led by parties like an appellate court.
Commercial Purpose — All shop rooms are commercial buildings, at the time of issuing building permits. This is not the deciding factor that the complainant was planning to use the shop for commercial....
The court affirmed that housing construction agreements fall under the Consumer Protection Act, establishing that both parties were bound by the definitions of 'consumer' and 'service'.
1) Cancellation of the Residential House by the Petitioner, instead of correction of defect in the building and further allotment of the same to the third party, certainly amounts to deficiency in se....
Bungalow Buyer’s Agreement – Direction for refund can be passed where agreement between parties has become difficult to be honoured.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
