H P HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS Vs. RAVI BHUSHAN S/O LEKH RAJ SOOD
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-3-2
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 03,2010

H P Housing And Urban Development Authority And Ors Appellant
VERSUS
Ravi Bhushan S/O Lekh Raj Sood Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Shimla in Consmer Complaint No. 179/2004, dated 31.7.2009 whereby complaint of the respondent was partly allowed and appellant was directed to comply with the recommendations made by the expert in Annexure C -4 within one month and parties were directed to bear their own costs.
(2.) THE facts of the case as they emerge from the record are that the appellant being the public authority viz. H.P.Housing Board had floated a self financing scheme and in the said scheme the respondent had purchased one flat for Rs. 10.25 lacs on lease and possession was given to him on 8.5.2002 vide possession letter Annexure C -1. As per the allegations made in the complaint, at the time of taking possession, some visible defects were pointed out to the officers, which were not rectified by the appellant. Thereafter the respondent shifted in the said flat after some time. Since he was ill and when he started living in the said flat more deficiencies in the flat were found. These were pointed out to the appellant and despite various requests made by the respondent, those were not removed. In this background Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed against the respondent wherein number of deficiencies in the flat have been enumerated in detail in para No.3 of the complaint.
(3.) THE appellant contested and resisted the complaint and its version in the reply was that there is no deficiency of service/unfair trade practice on its part and sub -standard material was not used in the construction of the house as alleged by the respondent. Flat was in a habitable condition. It is further pleaded that the respondent was estopped from ventilating the grievance before the Fora, on the ground that at the time of taking possession he executed Annexure R -2, which divulges that he has accepted premises to be in a habitable condition and the defects as pointed out by him were rectified by the appellant. Respondent in support of his case filed his own affidavit and affidavit of Sh. Satish Kumar Mehta, Architect by way of additional evidence and various documents Annexure C -1 to C -III viz. letter of possession issued by Housing Board Authorities dated 13.5.2002 to the respondent and receipt amounting to Rs. 540/ - and technical report of expert Annexure C -IV alongwith site plan Annexure C -V and photographs Annexures C -VI to Annexure C -XIII .;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.