R. BALAMMA vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

-THE present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') against the order dated 16.9.1997, passed by the learned District Forum-III (Janakpuri), New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 447/1997. By the impugned order the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant Smt. R. Balamma against the respondent DDA.

THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant Smt. R. Balamma purchased flat No. 685, Sector A, Pocket C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi from the respondent DDA and had takes over its possession on 8.3.1990. According to the appellant, there were number of defects in the said flat at the time of taking over the possession and she reported the matter to the authorities concerned, for removal of the alleged defects, but they failed to do so and hence she filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent DDA. THE following defects were pointed by the appellant in the complaint: (1) Seepage in room No. 1 attached to the bathroom. (2) Damage of the outer wall due to this seepage. (3) Leakage to the Overhead Tank. (4) Seepage in 2nd bath room and kitchen from W.C. of the top floor, i.e., flat No. 687. (5) Absence of water supply in the bath room.

The version of the respondent before the District Forum was that the flat allotted to the appellant was in good condition when the possession was delivered except some minor defects which were generally removed after the occupation of the flat. The respondent also stated that all the defects mentioned by the appellant in the complaint were removed to the satisfaction of the appellant and a certificate was obtained from the appellant on 6.9.1993 to that effect. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as all the defects pointed by the appellant had been removed to her satisfaction. Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant as no deficiency was proved against the respondent.

Not satisfied by the order of the District Forum, the present appeal has been filed mainly on the ground that the flat in question still has many defects which have not been removed by the respondent but the learned District Forum did not consider these issues. Moreover, she has been continuously making complaints about these defects but the same have been removed after three years, even though the possession was taken over in 1990 on account of which she has to suffer a lot for which she is entitled for compensation and cost of litigation.

THE case of the respondent before this Commission has been that all the defects, pointed out by the appellant in the complaint, have been removed and accordingly the learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. It was further stated that the appeal is time-barred and no satisfactory explanation has been given by the appellant for this delay. It is stated by the respondent that where the possession of the flat was handed over to the appellant, the appellant signed the possession slip stating that the flat in question was absolutely defect-free. However, subsequently the defects pointed by the appellant were attended to and needful was done by the respondent. It is further stated that no complaint was ever received from the appellant between 23.12.1990 to 3.1.1992. THE first complaint was received on 4.1.1992 stating that there is problem of water seepage in the bath room and kitchen from the WC of the top floor. According to the respondent, the seepage was not due to structural or construction defects of the said flat but due to the lack of proper maintenance of drainage/seepage system. Still the same were recorrected to the satisfaction of the appellant. It was, therefore, stated that the appeal, filed by the appellant, should be dismissed as all the defects pointed out by the appellant have been removed to her satisfaction. We have heard both the parties and have also carefully considered the material on record. The first issue raised by the respondent is regarding the limitation. The order was passed on 16.9.1997 and order was received on behalf of the appellant on 27.9.1997. The appeal appears to have been filed on 27.10.1997 and an application for condonation of delay was also filed. It thus appears that the appeal has been filed within time. The period of limitation is counted from the date of receipt of the order by the party concerned and not from the date of the order. Since in the case the order was received by the appellant on 27.9.1997 and the appeal has been filed on 27.10.1997 hence it has been filed within time and there is no delay and, therefore, the appeal is not barred by limitation.

COMING to the merits of the present appeal, we have carefully considered the order passed by the learned District Forum. In the complaint before the District Forum five defects as mentioned earlier have been pointed by the appellant. The same were removed by the respondent DDA as per their written statement dated 20.12.1993 and this is supported by a certificate dated 6.9.1993 given by the appellant. As regard the complaint of the appellant regarding seepage in the second bath room and kitchen through the WC of top floor in flat No. 687 is concerned, the respondent had filed a certificate from the owner of flat No. 687 that the same had been repaired. It is thus apparent that all the defects, pointed out by the appellant in the complaint before the District Forum, were removed by the respondent to her satisfaction. The respondent DDA is expected to remove the defects present at the time of delivery of possession. The DDA is not expected to remove the defects occurring afterwards or to maintain the house throughout the life of the occupant. The order passed by the learned District Forum is a well reasoned and well discussed order and there appears no infirmity in it, we do not find any ground to interfere in that order. Since the appellant has failed to point out any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the learned District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the appeal, filed by the appellant, is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. Considering the fact of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.