BRIJMOHAN GOYAL vs VICHARE ENTERPRISE

Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the Complainant, is to the order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") in one of the Appeals, being First Appeal No. 1377 of 2007. By the impugned order, while partly allowing a bunch of Appeals, preferred by a number of Complainants as well as by the Opposite Party, viz. a Real Estate Developer, the State Commission has deleted the award of compensation @ Rs.1,000/- per month by the Respondent to the Complainant, as awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Vadodara (for short "the District Forum") vide its order dated 19.08.2006 in Complaint Case No. 611 of 2001. The State Commission has, however, maintained the direction regarding the award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,000/-, awarded by the District Forum in favour of the Petitioner/Complainant towards mental agony and legal expenses. The direction by the District Forum to the Complainant to pay to the Respondent a sum of Rs.40,000/-, as monthly maintenance charges, has also been upheld.

In the first instance, accepting the Complaint filed by the Petitioner as also some other allottees of the flats in Sainath Plaza, Gotri Road, Vadodara, wherein it was alleged by them that despite they having been put in possession of their respective flats allotted to them, neither the sale-deeds in respect of the subject flats were executed nor other basic facilities, including provision of an additional lift, generator, health club etc. had been provided by the Respondent, the District Forum had awarded the afore-noted reliefs to the Complainant. The District Forum had directed the Respondent not to charge from the Complainant monthly charges of Rs.40,000/-, as charges for permanent maintenance had already been paid by the Complainant to the Respondent. Despite service of notice for listing of the present Revision Petition before the Circuit Bench, the Respondent remains unrepresented.

Accordingly, we have heard Mr. P.V. Moorjani, learned Authorized Representative of the Petitioner.

At the outset, Mr. Moorjani has stated that during the pendency of this Revision Petition, the conveyance deed has since been executed by the Respondent in favour of the Complainant and he is confining his prayer only to the direction with regard to payment of Rs.40,000/- by the Complainant to the Respondent as maintenance charges.

Having regard to the fact that according to the Complainant, certain basic facilities, which were required to be provided by the Respondent, are still not in place, and the Respondent has chosen not to contest the present Revision Petition, in our opinion, the Complainant should not be made liable to pay the aforesaid amount till all the basic facilities, as claimed in the Complaint, are provided by the Respondent to the Complainant. We may, however, hasten to add that in so far as the non-provision of the facilities, as alleged by the Complainant, is concerned, in the absence of any finding by the Fora below on this aspect of the matter, we are not called upon to decide the said issue. If the grievance of the Complainant is still not redressed, it will be open to him to take recourse to appropriate remedy, as may be available to him, in accordance with law.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.