AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member
This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No.762 of 2022 arising out of the Order dated 27.05.2022 of the District Commission in the complaint no. 08 of 2017.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order 26.08.2022 passed by the State Commission, the Order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the District Commission and the memo of petition.
It appears that the complainant / respondent had filed a complaint before the District Commission which was allowed. The relevant factual matrix as evinced from the District Consumer’s Order dated 27.05.2022 may be quoted herein below:
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- ---
In brief, the complainant states that he has been allotted House No. 801 on the eighth floor in Mandakini Tower / apartment (10 storeys tower) sector 4, Vaishali Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, developed by Ghaziabad Development Authority vide GDA’s letter no. 179 / Bhawan / Anu. / 2012 dated 22.11.2012 on leasehold basis with ownership rights with the GDA. The cost of the house was Rs. 20,61,972/- was paid in full to the GDA after taking loan from State Bank of India, New Delhi and the lease deed was registered in favour of the applicant on April 29, 2013 at the Registrar Office Ghaziabad for 90 years. From the date of registration of lease deed till today, the basic essential services were not provided by the opposite party in Mandakini Tower, such as lift not working, fire-fighting system not working, internal stairs and handrail of tower damaged, sewer line damaged, boundary wall missing, bush of main electronic panel of tower and other safety systems not working, water seepage from the ceiling and walls in house no.801 Mandakini Apartment, the plaster of the wall and ceiling is broken at various places, the grill and window frames of the balcony are rotten and the glass panes are broken, the doors of the rooms are broken, the floor is broken, the door, tiles and floor of the bathroom/ toilet are broken.
Due to the failure of the lift of the building and broken stairs, it is not possible for the complainant to get up and down from the house situated on the eight floor of the tower. In this regard, several times personal contact was made with GDA officers/ employees and several times written requests were also made but there was no solution or hearing. In such a situation the applicant is compelled to reside at another place.
After evaluating the rival versions and contentions, the District Commission allowed the complaint and passed the following award:
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is allowed against the opposite party. The opposite party is direct to repair and remove the deficiency found in Flat No. 801 of the complainant, such as water seepage from the ceiling and walls of flat no. 801 Mandakini Apartment, the broken plaster of the wall and ceiling at various places, the rotten grill and window frames of the balcony, the broken glass panes, broken doors of the rooms, damaged floor of rooms, damaged door, tiles and floor of the bathroom / toilet within 60 days from this order. Besides above, the opposite party shall also make the other facilities functional in the tower, such as lift operation, fire fighting system, electrical arrangements, sewer lines, safety boundary wall etc. and pay Rs. 2,000 to the complainant as compensation for causing mental and financial suffering.
(as per translated copy furnished by the petitioner)
Aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed in the State commission but it did not find any merits in the appeal and the Order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the District Commission was upheld. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order dated 26.08.2022 may be quoted herein below:
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- ---
The aforesaid Judgment and Order was challenged on the grounds that the complainant is no longer a consumer of the Authority as the possession and registration of the house has been done many years ago, hence the appellant is not liable to get the house repaired.
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- ---
It is true that the sale deed has been executed on 29.04.2013 but execution of sale deed does not mean that the Authority shall be held liable for deficiency in service if the Authority fails to provide the facilities / amenities mentioned in the Brochure issued by the Authority at the time of allotting the house. Therefore, there does not seem to be any ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any jurisdiction error in the impugned Order. The only submissions made by the learned counsel is that the complainant should not be held a consumer because as he has already purchased the plot and has also already taken the possession of the same. The same submission was made before the State Commission but the same was rightly rejected.
Learned counsel has once again tried to persuade the Bench to re-enter of the factual aspects of the case and re-appreciate the evidence. It may be observed that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on this Commission has its own limitation and confines and has a limited ambit. The Order under challenge must be shown to have been passed either in excess of its jurisdiction or where the fora below may be said to have abstained from exercising its jurisdiction. Concurrent findings have been returned by the District Commission and the State Commission. The Orders of the two fora are a matter of record. No useful purpose will be served by reproducing them here all over again. Suffice is to say that the Bench finds that the Orders to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The Bench does not notice any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings. The Bench also does not find any reason to make fresh de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. The Bench finds no good ground for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. The Bench has not been able to come across any streak of perversity in the findings or discern any legal principle having been overlooked or wrongly ruled. Certainly the fora below cannot be castigated either to have overstepped or transgressed their jurisdiction or to have omitted to exercise the same rightfully. The facts and circumstances appear to have been weighed and vetted well and to our satisfaction. (Refer: Order dated 08.09.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022 Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr. & Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269)
The revision petition being sans merits is dismissed.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition, to the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as to the fora below within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission within three days.