Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/120/2017

Kamlesh Sharma s/o Ramawatar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajasthan Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.Sharma

13 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 120/2017

 

Kamlesh Sharma s/o Ramavatar Sharma r/o B 315 Murlipura, Jaipur.

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board through Commissioner, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 195/2017

 

Rajasthan Housing Board through Commissioner, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Kamlesh Sharma s/o Ramavatar Sharma r/o B 315 Murlipura, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 13.3.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

2

 

Mr. J.P.Sharma counsel for the complainant Kamlesh Sharma

Mr.P.S.Tomar counsel for the Housing Board

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals are filed against the single order hence, are decided by this common order.

 

The contention of the Housing Board is that possession of the flat was handed over to the consumer on 3.3.2012 thereafter consumer complaint is not maintainable. Housing Board has not committed any deficiency. Some superficial corrections were indicated which were cured and vide Anx. 11 possession of the property was handed over to the consumer. All the constructions and fixtures were put as per the specifications.

 

Per contra the contention of the consumer is that there is no merit in the appeal of the Housing Board and as per directions of the National Commission the Forum below

 

3

 

should have consider the report of surveyor Raj Singh Verma only whereas the Forum below has re-decided the case which was not permissible and unnecessary deductions have been made. Hence, the total amount should have been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

The first contention of the consumer is that the Forum below was not competent to decide the matter again on merits is not acceptable in view of the judgment passed by the National Commission in which opportunity is accorded to the Housing Board to rebutt the report of the surveyor Raj Singh Verma but at the same time while setting aside the earlier order it was directed to the District Forum to re-decide the case on merits without being influenced by the observation in the order of the State Commission or the National Commission. Hence, the Forum below was justified and rather duty bound to decide the case afresh on merits.

 

The first contention of the Housing Board is that

 

4

 

possession of the property was handed over to the complainant on 3.3.2014 or as per the contention of the consumer himself in April 2014. Hence, the consumer complaint is not maintainable and reliance has been placed on II (2016) CPJ 36 (NC) Harpal Arya Vs. Housing Board, Haryana and IV (2007) CPJ 69 (NC) Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. Sapna Singla.

 

Here in the present case also as per Housing Board possession was taken over on 3.3.2014 and taking the contention of the consumer some repairs were made and thereafter in April 2014 he took the possession of the property and when he took the possession of the property without raising any objection the complaint is not maintainable in view of the law laid down in Harpal Arya and Sapna Singla (supra).

 

The other contention of the Housing Board is that all work has been carried out as per the specification and to support this contention in appeal Ex. A 2 deviation statement has been submitted.

 

The contention of the consumer is that documents were

 

5

 

not submitted before the Forum below without any reason hence, these documents could not be taken on record.

 

It is true that Anx. A 2 was in power and possession of the Housing Board but as nothing has been said about the genuineness of the documents it is appropriate to have the documents on record.

 

Raj Singh Verma has submitted the report Anx. A 1 in which some defects have been pointed out and further an estimate has been written for work not done and counsel for the Housing Board has rightly pointed out that all the points which have been mentioned in the report are being carried out as per the deviation statement and reliance has been placed on 2001 (2) CPJ 513 Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Mahaveer Prasad where it has been held that the Board provides clear details of the standard material and the construction of the property and consumer could not wish to insist to have the house finished in the way he wishes and further reliance has been placed on 3 (2006) CPJ 206 (NC) Radha Nand Singh Vs. Bihar State Housing Board and rightly contended that repairs

 

6

 

have not been yet carried out by the consumer hence the report of Raj Singh Verma could not be relied upon.

 

It may also be noted that no application was moved by the consumer u/s 13 (1) (c) to determine the defects and estimator Raj Singh Verma had inspected the property on 2.5.2015 meaning thereby that more than one year after the taking of the possession hence could not depict the true picture of the property at the time of taking over the possession and further more in April 2014 the consumer has taken possession of the property without raising any objections.

 

The other contention of the Housing Board is that Raj Singh Verma is registered under Nagar Nigam is doubtful as no license has been submitted. This contention has no force as Raj Singh Verma has categorically stated in his affidavit that he holds a license of registered architect from Nagar Nigam and this fact has not been controverted by the Housing Board.

 

Further it may be stated that the letter Anx. A 10 was also issued to the consumer to verify the quality of the

 

7

 

construction material but the compliance of the above nothing has been done by the consumer.

 

In view of the above discussion it is more than clear that consumer has accepted the possession of the property on 3.3.2012 and thereafter as per his contention he put his lock on the property on 10.4.2014 meaning thereby he was satisfied with the condition of the property and when once he has accepted the possession after his satisfaction he cannot raise the objection and further more he was given an opportunity to examine the quality of construction but he has not availed the opportunity.

 

Hence, in view of the above the appeal of the Housing Board is allowed and consequentially the appeal of the consumer stand dismissed.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm