By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 13.01.2016, passed by the -2- Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Pandri, Raipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.15/343. By the said order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 16.06.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.2015/66. By the said order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging serious defects in the house allotted to him, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹5,00,000/- for causing mental agony to him. The District Forum had also awarded a sum of ₹10,000/- in favour of the Complainant as litigation expenses. The relevant portion of the order of the District Forum reads as follows: “11. It is natural that when the dimension is not correct then in such house any object if is kept there is no possibility to be keep it straight. A person when invests his hard earned money in the construction of a house then he is very excited with such thoughts in his mind and it is the responsibility of the builder to get quality construction work done while monitoring with responsibility. If this responsibility was handled seriously and with responsibly then such a big error would not have happened in the construction work. The complete base of the house construction is dimension and error in it makes the complete plan of the house erroneous. Where on one hand the Opposite Party delayed in providing the possession to the complainant, on the other hand did not provide a superior quality house and made error in the dimension of the house. We are not in disagreement on the argument of the complainant that the complainant had bought -3- the above house with the loan from bank and savings done by him and now after that does not have the ability to buy another house. Definitely the complainant would have suffered serious mental agony by receiving a house completely with defects, in relation to which if the complainant has asked ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) as relief for mental agony then it cannot be said to be high, because the complainant has already paid the Opposite Party more that the cost ₹13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Only) of the house, after which the complainant received the possession of the house after years and after complaint and law suit and that too with wrong dimensions of every room. Since the complete house is with wrong dimensions and till the complete house is demolished the error cannot be eliminated and because of this reason the mental relief that has been asked by the complainant, definitely the Opposite Party is found responsible to pay the complainant and the above asked amount of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) in no circumstance can be considered as too high.” Having failed in its Appeal before the State Commission, the Grih Nirman Nigam is before us in this Revision Petition. Since there was some controversy relating to the afore-noted finding about the defects in the subject house, vide order dated 22.12.2016, an Additional Director General, CPWD was appointed as the Court Commissioner to inspect the said house and submit a report as to whether the same had been constructed as per the drawings prepared by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board and all the rooms in the house including kitchen and toilet are as per the prescribed specifications. In furtherance of the said order, the Court Commissioner has submitted his report dated 01.03.2017, wherein it is reported that -4- “dimensions of the rooms are not as per the drawings, the diagonals of the bigger rooms, i.e. two bedrooms and drawing and dining hall were measured which were also not found equal as shown on pre-page in the Table.” In the light of the said report by an independent expert, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. |
