AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THIS revision is directed against the order dated 28. 8. 2000 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack modifying the order dated 16. 8. 1994 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner-Authority to pay amount of Rs. 20,000 towards cost of putting the beams and columns for construction of the first floor by the respondent as also cost.
ONLY few facts need be noticed for deciding this revision respondent/complainant purchased house No. LB-112 in Laxmisagar Housing Accommodation Scheme from the petitioner/opposite party and took possession of the house some time in 1979. Lease-cum-sale deed of the house was executed on 11. 6. 1991. By the letter dated 9. 3. 1992, the respondent asked the petitioner Authority to repair the cracks in the walls and ceiling of the said house. He claimed that the cracks and developed due to sub-standard workmanship and defective foundation. This letter was followed by the letters dated 9. 4. 1992 and 23. 4. 1992. On not attending the complaints made in these letters, the respondent alleging deficiency in service filed complaint which was contested by filing written version by the petitioner Authority. Authority alleged that the cracks had developed for want of proper maintenance and additional construction of rooms by the respondent. Mr. Janarjan Das for the petitioner Authority has taken us through the relevant portions of the brochure of the scheme at pages 28 and 29 as also lease-cum-sale deed (copy at pages 30-34) in support of the submission that the houses under the scheme were low cost and a housing unit was offered on down payment of Rs. 4,200 only or alternatively, on payment of 216 monthly instalments of Rs. 24. 60 for the ground floor and the purchasers could, in due course, improve upon the houses. The scheme did not provide for raising at first floor. Submission is fully corroborated by the relevant portions of the brochure as also lease-cum-sale deed House No. LB-112 purchased by the respondent is on the ground floor. Since it was low cost house and the brochure did not provide for raising of first floor. Since it was low cost house and the brochure did not provide for raising of first floor, the State Commission acted erroneously in ordering the petitioner Authority to pay Rs. 20,000 towards cost of 9 beams and 9 columns which were stated to be necessary for raising construction of first floor as per the estimate of J. K. Rath, Civil Engineer. That apart, respondent who was put in possession of the house some time in 1979 cannot complain of the house having developed cracks in the walls and ceiling after more than a decade. To be only noted that the stand taken by the Authority was that the cracks had developed for want of proper maintenance of the house. Order passed by the State Commission thus deserves to be set aside being not sustainable in law on both the counts.
Accordingly, while allowing revision, aforesaid order dated 28. 8. 2000 is set aside and complaint dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Revision Petition allowed.