M.P. Housing Board vs PRABHAKAR MEDHEKAR

THE aforesaid appeals arise out of the order dated 10.4.1997 passed in Complaint Case Nos. 438/ 93,759/93,1248/93,437/93,653/93,732/93 and 436/93 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (for short the ''District Forum'') whereby the opposite party-M.P. Housing Board (hereinafter called as ''Housing Board'') has been ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of proceedings to each complainant. THE. complainants have also filed their appeal for enhancement of the compensation and to award the amount as claimed in their complaints.

FACTS giving rise to the appeals are that the complainants had applied for a house in 56 H.I.G. Vijay Nagar Scheme. Estimated value of the house depended upon the floor applied for. It was stipulated that possession would be given after half of the amount of the total cost is deposited in four instalments. After deposit of the half amount, the Housing Board informed the complainants to pay additional amount before possession could be given. This additional amount was deposited under protest to get possession although complainants questioned the competence to ask for it without formal notice in advance. Complainants in their complaint before District Forum had stated that building material used in construction was poor and sub-standard. Due to this, the constructed houses had defects in plastering, fixtures etc. as also in wood work. These defects became apparent within first four to six months. Some defects were shown to the officers of the Housing Board before taking possession upon which the complainants were assured that the defects would be rectified. What was actually done was merely an eye wash. The complainants engaged a qualified Engineer, Shri Kutumbale to inspect and give a report and an estimate of the likely cost to be incurred in the removal of defect so as to get the house in a condition, ready for living. Complainants also complained of ignoring their repeated requests to give the documents so that complainants could check the price which they were asked to pay. The complainants complained of excess charge of the amount and alleged deficiency in service by the use of sub-standard material and for total inefficiency in supervision which resulted in the sorry mess. Complainants claimed compensation of Rs. 99,000/- for delayed delivery of possession of the house of sub- standard quality and pain and sufferings. Housing Board resisted the complaints about the competence of District Forum to adjudicate upon the point regarding pricing of the house. The deficiency in service was denied. District Forum after perusal of record held that pricing of the house was not within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, for that the complainants if so advised, may seek appropriate remedy in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. As to deficiency in service, the District Forum held that there was no reason to disbelieve the report of Shri Kutumbale. However, as Shri Kutumbale failed to give details of the amount which was required for repairs allowed the complaint partly by award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- of the proceedings.

Having heard Mr. B.V. Bhargava, learned Counsel for the Housing Board and three complainants present in person and on going through material on record, we are of the opinion that appeals filed by the Housing Board as well as by the complainants are devoid of any merit. The order passed by the District Forum is based on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. From the material produced and photographs of the houses on record it is clearly demonstrable that plastering was defective, walls show seepage besides other complaints which reflect of use of building material and its construction of sub-standard quality. The contention that at the time of taking delivery of possession no complaint was made nor any defect was pointed out is of no avail as of a newly constructed house the defects are not easily visible which came to notice only after the occupant occupies and starts living in the house. A person who takes a constructed house from a builder, like Housing Board, does not expect that the construction will be sub-standard by use of sub-standard building material. The District Forum in the circumstances rightly awarded reasonable compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to each complainant for the expenses which may be incurred in repairs and for inconvenience and mental agony.

THE cross appeals filed by the complainants for enhancement of compensation and for award of the amount as claimed in the complaint, cannot be allowed in the absence of the material and details of the amount which is likely to be incurred in repairs. THErefore, the District Forum in exercise of its discretion considering overall circumstances has awarded just and fair compensation Rs. 10,000/-. In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.