AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE opposite party in C. O. P. No. 8/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Perambalur is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: The opposite party had constructed a house and handed over possession to the complainant on 15. 4. 2000. Defects were noticed subsequently after possession and thereafter the complaint came to be filed for a direction to the opposite party to rectify the defects and in case the opposite party would not do it then to pay the expenses required for the same together with a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation towards mental agony.
THE opposite party resisted the complaint contending inter alia as follows: The building was handed over to the complainant on 15. 4. 2000. If there were defects, the complainant ought to have reported immediately. He ought to have filed photographs and necessary estimates for rectifying the said defects. This he did not do. There were no defects in the building at the time possession was handed over to the complainant and that was the reason why the complainant kept quiet till 1. 12. 2000 the date of Counsel notice and then the complaint came to be filed on 17. 8. 2001 nearly more than a year and four months after taking possession. The photos taken in May 2002 would not show the correct picture. The defects as found in the photographs might have occurred due to improper maintenance of the building on the part of the complainant from 15. 4. 2000 till date. The estimate filed by the complainant was bereft of particulars as to the date of inspection, details of defects, cost of each item to be rectified so on and so forth. Further, the engineer who accompanied the Advocate Commissioner during his inspection did not give any estimate of cost with PWD guidelines and break-up for rectifying the defects. The opposite party had filed objections to the Commissioner''s report on 26. 3. 2002. The complaint was liable to be dismissed. Before the District Forum, on the side of the complainant Exs. A1 to A12 were marked while on the side of the opposite party no document was marked.
The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant and by order dated 14. 6. 2002 directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 32,000 to the complainant, out of which Rs. 25,000 was for rectifying the defects, Rs. 5,000 for compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 towards costs. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.
ON behalf of the opposite party it was submitted that the complaint was barred by limitation; that immediately on occupying the property the complainant had not reported about the defects; that in any event the matter being a dispute between a builder and co-operative society, it was outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. We have gone through the materials on record and we are satisfied that no exception could be taken to the decision of the District Forum. It is not possible to assess the defects immediately on occupying the property. It may require a couple of weeks before the defects were noticed. This is precisely what had happened in the present case. During the proceedings, there was an Advocate Commissioner appointed who had utilized the services of an Engineer and had reported about the defets and the cost required for rectifying the defects. The District Forum has taken the estimate along with the Advocate Commissioner''s report and found that there were indeed defects which needed rectification and arrived at the figures already referred to in the course of the order. So far as the maintainability of the complaint is concerned, it is now well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any rights provided under other Acts for the time being in force. The contention on behalf of the opposite party that the complaint was not maintainable could not, therefore, be accepted. The District Forum has given proper reasons for arriving at the finding that there was deficiency in service and quantified the amount payable to the complainant and also the amount payable towards compensation for mental agony and costs. There are no merits in the appeal.
IN the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.