SHIVsHANKAR SINGH vs VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL & 3 ORS

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 161 of 2010 - Vinod Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Shivam Grih Niraman Samiti Maryadit & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District forum allowing complaint was modified.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent is a member of OP No.1 which is a registered cooperative society while OP No.2 has been the president of OP No.1 society and OP-3 is the contractor for construction of houses. The complainant being a member of the society had entered into a tripartite agreement with OP-1 to 3 for purchase of a plot as well as construction of house thereon at a price of Rs.6,52,000/- and for that purpose he had sought finance from OP No.4 bank also. Complainant averred that he had deposited total Rs.6,56,800/- on various dates with OPs as against estimated cost of Rs.6,52,000/-. Besides aforesaid, he had also paid Rs.18,300/- towards registration charges and paid Rs.60,000/- to OP-4 bank towards loan installments & interest. Complainant further averred that he had in all paid Rs.7,16,800/- before taking possession of the house on 07.06.2008 but after occupying the house he observed that the house was of inferior quality as there appeared cracks in the walls and seepage of water occurred during rains, the plinth had settled down thus the house was not worth living. Intimation about the aforesaid defects was given to OPs but was of no avail. Complainant alleged that OPs had committed deficiency in service by sale of a house of inferior quality despite collecting additional amount. Complainant prayed for seeking direction to OP No.1 to 3 for dismantling the said inferior house and to provide in lieu thereof a reconstructed house of proper quality and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and during period of reconstruction, loan installments to be paid by OP No.1 to 3 to the bank OP No.4. OP No.2 be directed to refund Rs.55,800/- collected by him or alternatively OP No.1 to 3 may repossess the defective house and refund him the amount of Rs.7,02,300/- invested by him towards the house along with interest at the rate imposed by the bank on him and also to refund him Rs.18,300/- towards registration charges & Rs.20,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

OPs Nos.1 & 2 in their joint reply while denying other averments of the complaint stated that OP No.1 is the cooperative society so the dispute related to C.G. Cooperative Societies Act and a consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to decide the same and also the complainant was not its consumer so the complaint was not entertainable. OPs Nos.1&2 averred that as per their information the complainant had frequently got the house map modified during the process of construction thereby sought additional construction due to which cracks in walls had occurred which had been repaired. It was also averred that the complaint of the complainant was false and OP Nos.1 & 2 had not committed any deficiency in service as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed. OP No.3 in its reply while refuting other averments of the complaint stated that the complainant had got the map modified many times during the course of construction and an amount of Rs.96,168/-was still recoverable from him towards additional construction. OP No.3 has averred that he is prepared to do the repair work, if any. OP No.3 submitted report of expert Shri Dipendra Padhi & Associates towards repair work. OP No.3 averred that the complainant has produced the assessment of repair work exaggeratedly. OP No.3 averred that he did not commit any deficiency in service thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to repair house within six months or in the alternative pay Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation as cost of repairs with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/- for mental agony and cost of litigation of Rs.1000/-. Complainant filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order set aside direction for repair of the house and enhanced cost of repairs from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- and rest of the order was upheld against which, this revision petition has been filed.

None appeared for respondents and respondents were proceeded ex-parte.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of repairs made by petitioner, learned State Commission has committed error in enhancing compensation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

OP No. 3 has not challenged order of District forum before State Commission and has challenged order of State Commission before this Commission meaning thereby he has challenged only enhancement of compensation from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, the question to be decided by this Commission is whether enhancement of cost of repair from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- by State Commission was proper or not?

Learned State Commission while discussing at length placed reliance on estimate prepared by Shri Sandeep Agrawal, who prepared estimate of Rs.2,30,000/- including Rs.10,000/- for supervision charges. It was further observed in the order that as per Commissioner, Shri Raj Awasthi, OP No.3 has done repair work like plastering of roof from upper side and joints of parapet walls with roof, two defective doors, Kota stone tiles clearing and distemper and for this work has reduced amount of compensation of Rs.30,000/- and arrived at a conclusion that Rs.2,00,000/- may be awarded as cost of repairs. When OP No. 3 has carried out some repairs, as per Shri Raj Awasthi, Commissioner''s report, looking to the volume of repairs at least Rs.50,000/- should have been reduced from the estimate given by Shri Sandeep Aggarwal which includes Rs.10,000/- as supervision charges. In such circumstances, learned State Commission should have enhanced compensation to Rs.1,80,000/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/- and to this extent, revision petition is to be allowed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and order dated

10.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 161 of 2010 - Vinod Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Shivam Grih Niraman Samiti Maryadit & Ors. is partly modified and cost of repairs awarded Rs.2,00,000/- is reduced to Rs.1,80,000/- and rest of the order is upheld. Parties to bear their own costs.