Jyotiben Rajnikant Halani vs Gordhanbhai

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/complainants against the order dated 16.01.2013 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 3663/2012 - Smt. Jyotiben Rajnikant Halani & Anr. Vs. Shri Gordhanbhai Ramjibhai Pipalva by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainants/petitioners purchased house from the OP/respondent constructed on sub plot No. 25/B-1 by registered Sale Deed dated 25.3.2010. At the time of purchase of house, OP told to the complainant that construction of the house is of good quality, whereas construction was of poor quality and there were various types of defects in the constructed house. It was further alleged that inferior material was used. OP has committed deficiency in service in selling house of inferior quality. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that there is no relationship between the complainant-OP that of consumer-trader. It was further stated that there were no defects in the house and inferior material was not used and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Petitioner filed appeal before the learned State Commission, which was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent was a builder and sold house of inferior construction and thus, committed deficiency in service; even then, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that respondent has not sold the house to the petitioner in the capacity of any contractor or developer, but has sold the house constructed by him for his own residence. Completion certificate of the house was issued on 25.3.2008, whereas house has been sold by registered Sale Deed dated 25.3.2010. In such circumstances, there cannot be any relationship of service provider between the petitioner and the respondent and learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing complaint. As far as quality of construction is concerned, learned District Forum came to the conclusion that petitioner failed to prove inferior quality of construction. Learned State Commission also affirmed this finding and we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which calls for any interference.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.