RAJVIR SINGH vs Uttar Pradesh Awas And Vikas Parishad

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 08.07.2008 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 907/2008 - Uttar Pradesh Residential and Development Council Vs. Rajvir Singh by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased house on installments from OP/respondent which was not properly constructed but under compelling circumstances, he obtained possession of the house and sale deed was executed in his name on the oral assurance that deficiencies in the house will be removed later on. Construction work was of inferior quality and latrine, tank, kitchen, bathroom and fittings were leaking. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP filed vakalatnama, but did not file written statement and was proceeded ex -parte. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.25,000/ - along with interest. OP filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order while allowing appeal, set aside order of District Forum and complaint was dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard petitioner in person and learned Counsel for the respondent and perused record.

PETITIONER submitted that as construction of house was defective and learned District Forum rightly granted compensation, learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that learned District Forum allowed complaint ex -parte. Learned State Commission while allowing appeal observed that petitioner failed to place any document on record regarding deficiencies in the house. Admittedly, sale deed in favour of the petitioner was executed on 1.9.2005 and possession was given on 29.10.2005 and at that time no defect was pointed in writing. Petitioner tried to prove by affidavit that respondent assured to rectify defects in the construction, but no such assurance stood proved in the absence of any documentary evidence. Complaint was also filed on 26.4.2006 i.e. after almost 6 months of taking possession. Had there been deficiency in construction, petitioner should have given notice for removing deficiencies just after taking possession and should have filed complaint immediately. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence on record, it cannot be presumed that there was any deficiency in the construction work which was to be rectified. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.