SHRIKANT BUDHIYA vs SEEMA SHRIVASTAVA

This Revision Petition, by a real estate developer, is directed against the order dated 25.6.2015, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri at Raipur (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.FA/15/317. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 29.5.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur in CC/15/2013. By the said order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner for selling a flat to her on 23.3.2012 for a sale consideration of 24,25,000/-, with several defects including peeling off of the plaster; use of inferior quality of products leading to burning of electricity meter and bathroom fittings etc., the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a sum of 3,50,000/- for repairing the defects in the flat within one month with the default stipulation of interest at the rate of 9% if the said amount was not paid within one month; 2,00,000/- as damages and 5,000/- as cost of litigation. When the Petition had come up for motion hearing, notice to the Respondent was confined to the question of quantum of compensation only.

The main grievance of the Petitioner is that since the Complaint regarding the afore-noted defects was made for the first time only by way of the Complaint, which was filed after a lapse of about 6 months of delivery of the possession, the said defects had crept in because of lack of maintenance of the flat.

Having perused the documents on record, including the inspection report by a Civil Engineer, quoted in the impugned order, we are of the view that in so far as the concurrent finding recorded by both the Foras below, relating to the deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner is concerned, being based on a cogent material, referred to in the impugned order, though not filed with the present Petition, does not warrant any interference. It is affirmed accordingly.

Having arrived at the said conclusion, the only question surviving for consideration is as to whether having directed payment of the afore-noted amounts, the Fora below was justified in awarding compensation of 2,00,000/- in addition to the other amounts. Having bestowed our consideration on the said point, we are of the view that the compensation so awarded is on the higher side. In our view, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the award of compensation of 50,000/- shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. The other directions in the impugned order are maintained.

Resultantly, the Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The amount deposited by the Petitioner in terms of order dated 11.5.2016 shall be released to the Respondent forthwith. The balance amount to be paid by the Petitioner in terms of this order shall be remitted directly to the Respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this order till actual realization.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.