Ratna Deb vs Sanjay Dodhi Valley Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by Smt. Ratna Deb, Petitioner herein and Complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi (for short ''''the District Forum'''') being aggrieved by the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short ''''the State Commission'''') for awarding a compensation of Rs.60,000/ -, apart from Rs.5000/ - as costs of litigation, which was far less than she had asked for. The revision petition has also been filed with a delay of 108 days over and above the statutory period of 90 days provided for filing such revision petitions.

IN her application seeking condonation of delay, the Petitioner has stated that this occurred because she did not receive copy of the final order of the State Commission purportedly mailed to her through registered post on 05.09.2013. Although she visited the office of the State Commission on a number of occasions, she could not get the required information and it was only after she had seen the orders of the State Commission on the internet that she managed to get a copy of the final order on 19.03.2014. In her verbal submissions before us while reiterating the above reasons, she also pointed out that perhaps the letter sent to her in Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand may not have reached because of the extensive damage caused in the area by inundation/floods in July/August, 2013. In order to ascertain the veracity of these contentions, we requested the State Commission to send us the original file on the subject and from a perusal of the same we note that there is no evidence on record regarding dispatch through registered post of the first/free copy of the order to the Petitioner. The only receipt pertains to the copy that she received on 19.03.2014. In view of these facts, we accept the explanation offered by her, regarding delay in filing this revision petition and condone the same. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, the Petitioner, who is a senior citizen and resident of Ganeshpur, Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand, had stated that she had purchased a house/cottage from the Respondent for her own living and had paid a total amount of Rs.8,50,000/ - for the same on 31.03.2002. However, when Respondent finally handed over possession of the cottage to the Petitioner on 16.10.2002 with a delay of about four months from the stipulated date, she found that it was unfinished and the materials used, including the tiles and plywood, were of very inferior quality. The shutters had not been properly installed and the electrical fittings were incomplete. Moreover, the workmen of the Respondent caused great discomfort and mental pain and disturbance to the Petitioner while she was performing the grihapravesh puja. Despite all requests to redress the various deficiencies noted by her, the Respondent failed to do so and instead raised a demand of Rs.1,18,483/ -. She, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum, requesting for quashing of said demand and for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/ - on account of physical and mental harassment suffered by her. She also requested that the Respondent be directed to remove the defects/deficiencies and pay her a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ - for getting the cottage in final shape as per the brochure.

RESPONDENT on being served admitted that a contract between the parties had been entered on 31.03.2002 and a sale deed for Rs.8,50,000/ - was executed in favour of the Petitioner. The cottage was to be constructed as per the layout plan and for any additional works/alterations/renovations etc., charges had to be paid for separately. Respondent as a goodwill gesture arranged for a free accommodation in Uttarkashi so that the Petitioner could supervise the construction. She pressed for some additional works, which resulted in delay in the execution of the work, for which she was charged the additional amount of Rs.1,18,483/ -. However, Petitioner refused to pay this amount, leading to a dispute between the parties. Respondent contended that the construction work was as per the layout plan and there was no deficiency/shortcoming as alleged by the Petitioner.

THE District Forum, after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence filed before it, disposed of the complaint by holding that the Petitioner will not be liable to pay the entire amount of Rs.1,18,483/ - for the additional works done by the Respondent and the amount of Rs.50,000/ - already paid by her would be taken as full and final payment of the bills on that account. The District Forum also ordered payment of Rs.5000/ - as costs to the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and give a report, who after due inspection in the presence of the parties reported that most of the specifications agreed between the parties were complied with and the deficiencies as alleged by the Petitioner did not exist. The State Commission while maintaining the relief granted to the Petitioner by the District Forum directed the Respondent to also pay Rs.60,000/ - within a period of 30 days by observing as follows: ''''15. The complainant/appellant is an old lady of about 72 years. She had to run from pillar to post in order to get habitable cottage. According to the complainant, the construction carried out by the builder was of poor quality and fittings and fixtures were not in accordance with the specifications. The report of the Local Commissioner belies most of the allegations and apprehensions of the complainant/appellant. However, it cannot be said that they were totally baseless or non -existent.

The Tribunal/Forum while adjudicating the matter must ensure substantial justice. In the process hard facts must be taken into consideration. In the present case, there has been bitter dispute between the builder and the customer/purchaser. The builder is always stronger party being a resourceful person in comparison to an ordinary buyer. Builder is more likely to manipulate the things in his favour, therefore, all the complaints of the appellant should not be lightly taken and brushed aside. Few of her complaints may be true and real. The matter is peculiar in nature and direct evidence was hardly available.

Keeping these things in mind, we broadly agree with the finding of the Ld. Lower Court but we are of the considered view that the Ld. District Forum ought to have suitable awarded compensation. We, therefore, fixed an amount of Rs. 60,000/ - as compensation to be paid by the Respondent -1 towards mental pain, agony and harassment meted out to the complainant/appellant. To this extent, Impugned order dated 9.8.2011 stands modified. ''''

STILL not satisfied with the enhanced relief given by the State Commission, the Petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

PETITIONER in person and Counsel for the Respondent made verbal submissions before us. Petitioner vehemently argued that apart from the delay of 3 months in handing over the possession of the cottage, there was no electricity and water connection, incomplete plastering; even the doors and windows did not have shutters. She also challenged the report of the Local Commissioner and stated that there were at least 10 specific deficiencies and defective workmanship in respect of the cottage, which included poor quality of plywood and glass panes with no anti -termite treatment, poor quality of flooring with broken tiles instead of mosaic/marble flooring as assured, smaller bathroom sizes with no geyser, defective plumbing, no electricity and water connection and also no road or infrastructure around the cottage. Apart from this, earthquake proofing was not done and the registration of the title documents as promised by the Respondent was also not done although she had paid extra money of Rs.17,500/ - for the same. Because of poor security there was a major theft in the premises on

10.2010 RESULTING in loss of valuable articles. Petitioner, therefore, contended that the compensation that she should now be paid should be over Rs.35,00,000/ -, which included Rs.20,00,000/ - towards loss of valuable articles in her cottage and Rs.4,00,000/ - for causing mental and physical harassment for 9 years. 10. Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before the Fora below and stated that the Local Commissioner appointed by the State Commission was a retired Executive Engineer, who thoroughly inspected the premises in the presence of the Petitioner and gave a credible technical report that there were no defects or deficiencies, the plumbing and earthquake proofing had been done and the infrastructure around the premises was complete. The slight delay in handing over the possession of the cottage was because of the difficult attitude of the Petitioner, who kept making unreasonable demands and being abusive to the Respondent and the labourers who were constructing the cottage.

WE have heard the Petitioner in person and learned Counsel for the Respondent. At the outset, it may be stated that this is the second round of litigation. In the first round, the District Forum had dismissed the complaint, with liberty to the Complainant, Petitioner herein, to approach a Civil Court or any other Court for relief as the case involved complex and complicated questions, which required detailed evidence. The State Commission, while disposing of the appeal filed against the order of the District Forum, remitted the matter back to the District Forum for deciding it afresh within three months. This Commission before whom the Petitioner filed a revision petition against the order of the State Commission, however, upheld the order of the State Commission and directed the District Forum to decide the complaint within a period of six months. The Hon ''ble Supreme Court too disposed of the writ petition filed by the Petitioner as not maintainable but with a direction to the District Forum to dispose of the complaint within a period of three months.

WE have carefully considered the submissions made by the Petitioner as also the Counsel for the Respondent and have also gone through the comprehensive report of the Local Commissioner, who is a retired Executive Engineer. We note that he had inspected the cottage in the presence of the Petitioner and one Shri R. Notiyal from the Respondent company and taken relevant photographs. From a perusal of this report, we agree with the finding of the State Commission that, except for some termite infestation in the frames of windows and doors, which had been made of natural wood, there were no other defects or deficiencies, as alleged, and the cottage was constructed in terms of the construction and layout plans and as per the agreement entered into between the parties. Apart from verbal submissions made vehemently by the Petitioner, she has not been able to produce any independent or credible evidence before us to displace the report of the Local Commissioner. This report after due consideration had been accepted by the State Commission. We see no reason in our revisional jurisdiction to disagree or dispute with the order of the State Commission, which is upheld in toto.

ACCORDINGLY , the present revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.