CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO. 685 OF 2008 Date of filing : 08/05/2008

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 16 OF 2003 Date of order : 18/05/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : PUNE



Shri Rohit Shrikrishna Joshi

R/at 33/34, Mangalwar Peth,

Joshi Wada, Near Vishweshwar Mandir,

Satara – 415 002

Thru his legal guardian & beneficiary

Shri Shrikrishna Dattatraya Joshi … Appellant/org. complainant

V/s.

1. M/s.Lambodar Enterprises

O/at 370, Navi Peth, Pune-411 030

Thru its Partner O.P.No.2

Mr.Vivek Anant Kudale

2. Mr.Vivek Anant Kudale

R/at Anant Laxmi Hills

S.No.47, Wadgaon Bk; Tal. Haveli,

Dist. Pune – 411 041.

3. Mr.Rahul Shrikrishna Joshi

R/at 33/34, Mangalwar Peth,

Joshi Wada, Near Vishweshwar Mandir,

Satara – 415 002 … Respondents/org. O.Ps.


Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Mr.Sant, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

- : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal arises out of order/award dated 08/04/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.16/2003 Mr.Rohit Joshi V/s. M/s.Lambodar Enterprises and Ors. passed by District Consumer Forum Pune. The impugned order/award is a common judgement disposing of complaint No.168/2002 and the complaint referred above. Not satisfied with the award passed, complainant Shri Rohit Shrikrishna Joshi from complaint No.16/2003 filed this appeal.

Undisputed facts are that appellant/complainant had agreed to purchase a flat situated on the first floor bearing No.1 in building under construction situated on CTS No.604, Shaniwar Peth, Pune-13 for consideration. The transaction is witnessed by an agreement dated 28/01/1997 and supplementary agreements dated 27/12/2000 and 03/01/2002. Possession of the flat though construction of the entire building was still in progress, was handed over to and received by the complainant on 17/04/2002. It is the grievances of the complainant that (i) he had received 33 sq.ft. less area; (ii) instead of water cistern of 1000 Ltrs., the cistern of only 430 Ltrs. is provided; (iii) Outside plaster of the walls was not up to the quality; (iv) since upper floor construction is yet to be completed, ceiling slab of his flat for lack of proper water proofing, witnessed leakage; (v) drainage gutter pipeline was not connected to the Corporation sewerage line; (vi) there was no proper approach road to his flat and lastly (vii) car parking was also not provided. Therefore, he filed consumer complaint to get removed these deficiencies. He also claimed Rs.75,500/- by way of compensation to remove the defects in construction as estimated by an Architect.

As per impugned order, the complaint was partly allowed per following order :-



“The Opponents No.1&2 are hereby directed to complete the entire construction work within four months from the date of receipt of this order by them. The liberty is given to the Opponents No.1&2 to seek extention of time for just and satisfactory cause.



Each complainant be paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental pain and agony suffered by them within a period of two months from the date of this order.”



Not satisfied with the award passed, this appeal is preferred by org. complainant, supra. Original O.Ps. did not prefer any appeal as it appears.

Respondents/org. O.Ps. were served, but absent. Proof of service are taken on record. We heard Mr.Sant, Advocate for the appellant/org. complainant.

Deficiencies complained were also subject to local investigation at the hand of the Court Commissioner Mr.Devendra Bhuskute. He is not a technical person and there is no affidavit of the Commissioner on record. Said Commissioner’s report made observations particularly in respect of quality of the outside plaster work, etc. The building, as admitted, is still under construction. The flat of the complainant is situated at the first floor. One has not sure whether completion certificate is in respect of said flat only or not before handing over the possession. It is revealed that the possession was handed over to the complainant even before completion of the building, just to accommodate him considering his requirement. As earlier pointed out, Rs.75,500/- is claimed as per alleged estimate for repairs. However, there is no evidence adduced to substantiate the same. Leakage through slab is attributed to the incomplete construction work and since work of the construction of entire building is directed to be completed by the impugned order/award, perhaps, because of same, forum below did not grant specifically other reliefs as prayed for by the complainant in respect of each item of deficiencies in service. At one place, Forum below, therefore, observed –

“There are number of defects in the construction work. It is not possible to give the directions in respect of each and every defect pointed out by both the complainants. From the submissions made before us, it is quite evident that the construction work is held up for the reasons best known to the opponent. As on today, the construction work is not in progress. The said work will have to be commenced by the Opponent in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Both the Learned Advocates who appeared on behalf of the complainants in their respective cases have urged before us that in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the direction be given to the Opponent to carry out the construction work. The Opponent has left the matter at the discretion of this forum by remaining absent. Therefore, there is no other option left with us but to direct the Opponent to complete the construction work in accordance with the sanctioned plan within certain time.”



As earlier pointed out, respondents/O.Ps. did not prefer any appeal. Therefore, the order passed against them gets finality. In these backgrounds and considering the totality of the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order/award by way of granting additional reliefs to the complainant. Thus, appeal being devoid of any substance, we pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Appeal stands dismissed.

2. In the given circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.



(S.P. Lale) (S.R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member