GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD vs PADMA VIJAY TINDWANI

APPLICANT Mr./Ms. Padama Vijay, Tindwani, has filed this review application praying for review of our order passed by us on 29.10.2004.

THE brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who was the complainant, had filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging several deficiencies regarding poor quality work in building construction, on the part of the Gujarat Housing Board, who was the opposite party before the District Forum. THE District Forum after hearing the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed the Gujarat Housing Board to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.9.1991 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission, who while dismissing the appeal filed by the Gujarat State Commission, allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. Aggrieved by this order the Gujarat Housing Board filed the Revision Petition before us. This Commission vide its order dated 29.10.2004 partly allowed the revision petition. The order passed by the Commission, was as follows: "A notice was sent to the respondent on 28.9.2004 which has not been received back unserved. Consequently, it should be deemed to have been served with the notice. Heard Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt. He submits that there was no evidence at all led before the District Forum as well as before the State Commission to come to finding that there was deficiency in service. We are not impressed by this submission. Photographs of the construction were filed along with affidavit which were required to be considered and it cannot be said to be a case of no evidence at this stage. However, Mr. Bhatt rightly submits that there was virtually no occasion for the State Commission for enhancing the amount of compensation awarded on the basis of alleged photographs and the affidavit evidence from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- with 10% interest per annum. We feel that it will be appropriate to modify the order of State Commission by reducing the amount of compensation to Rs. 25,000/-. Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the State Commission and hold the complainant was entitled to get an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation as was awarded by District Forum with interest @ 10% per annum. This revision petition is disposed of accordingly."

Now MP No. 33/2005 has been filed by the respondent/complainant for review of the above order passed by us on the ground that he was not noticed and hence not heard. From the perusal of the office record, we found that there has been some error on the part of this Commission in noticing the Review Application, in the light of which the complainant could not be heard.

THUS, in view of the powers conferred under Section 22(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we recalled our order and heard both the parties at length on the merits of the case. The plea advanced by the complainant, who was in person, is that the District Forum had no ground to reduce the amount prayed for by him while awarding compensation, which is clear. This error was corrected by the State Commission by granting whole of the prayed amount of Rs. 50,000/-. We have very carefully gone through the order passed by both the lower Forums. In our view, the District Forum, after applying its mind and perusal of material on record awarded Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Admittedly there was no other material about the quality of work done or about the poor workmanship except the statement of the complainant himself who is a non-technical person and in his own words a ''layman''. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also bearing in mind the local conditions, the District Forum awarded the complainant a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. We have very carefully gone through the order passed by the State Commission and found that the State Commission had no ground whatsoever except the prayed for amount to support its case while enhancing the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. There is no plausible ground shown or any material or assessment report brought on record to support the claim of the complainant. In our view, it is a question of judgment exercised by both the Forums. We like to rely more upon the order of the District Forum as they are more familiar with the local conditions and situation and the amount awarded as compensation should not have been tampered with by the State Commission without any proof, evidence or material on record. In view of which we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission. The order passed by the District Forum is restored except that the rate of interest shall be @ 12% p.a. instead of 18% p.a. as awarded by the District Forum. The revision petition is allowed in above terms. R.P. allowed.