AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 293 wordsTHIS petition is by the builder-opposite party. Complaint filed by the respondent-complainant alleging deficiency in service in the construction of the flat purchased by him from the petitioner was allowed by the District Forum.
APPEAL against that order filed by the petitioner-builder was dismissed by the State Commission. Complainant had purchased a flat from the petitioner-opposite party under an agreement which stipulated provision for providing amenities in the flat. Though the complainant had made full payment as per the agreement the builder demanded additional amount for water connection, etc. and also left several works to be completed. District Forum after consideration of the facts of the case allowed the complaint and gave a direction to the petitioner to execute sale deed and get the same registered in respect of the flat in question after bearing the increased stamp duty and registration charges. Direction was also issued to the petitioner to refund Rs. 10,000/- collected from the complainant towards water connection and also to refund another Rs. 5,000/- for providing grills which were not so provided. Another direction was for transfer of electric meter in the name of the complainant. Lastly petitioner was directed to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 23,130/-. The compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded. State Commission on appeal filed by the petitioner builder again examined the whole matter and did not find any error in the order of the District Forum to fake a different view. Aggrieved petitioner has come before us. In the circumstances of the case we do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition dismissed.
