V.K. Patil, Member - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant for enhancement of the awarded amount and for seeking relief claimed in the complaint in toto having been aggrieved by the order dated 05.10.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Bilaspur (herein after referred for short as "District Forum") in complaint case No. 189/2008 whereby his complaint was partly allowed. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant is a member of OP No. 1 which is a registered co -operative -society while OP No. 2 has been the president of OP No. 1 society and OP -3 is the contractor for construction of houses. The complainant being a member of the society had entered into a tripartite agreement with OP -1 to 3 for purchase of a plot as well as construction of house thereon at a price of Rs. 6,52,000/ - and for that purpose he had sought finance from OP No. 4 bank also. Complainant averred that he had deposited total Rs. 6,56,800/ - on various dates with OPs as against estimated cost of Rs. 6,52,000/ -. Besides aforesaid, he had also paid Rs. 18,300/ - towards registration charges and paid Rs. 60,000/ - to OP -4 bank towards loan installments & interest. Complainant further averred that he had in all paid Rs. 7,16,800/ - before taking possession of the house on 07.06.2008 but after occupying the house he observed that the house was of inferior quality as there appeared cracks in the walls and seepage of water occurred during rains, the plinth had settled down thus the house was not worth living. Intimation about the aforesaid defects was given to OPs but was of no avail. Complainant alleged that OPs had committed deficiency in service by sale of a house of inferior quality despite collecting additional amount. Complainant prayed for seeking direction to OP No. 1 to 3 for dismantling the said inferior house and to provide in lieu thereof a reconstructed house of proper quality and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - and during period of reconstruction, loan installments to be paid by OP No. 1 to 3 to the bank OP No. 4. OP No. 2 be directed to refund Rs. 55,800/ - collected by him or alternatively OP No. 1 to 3 may repossess the defective house and refund him the amount of Rs. 7,02,300/ - invested by him towards the house along with interest at the rate imposed by the bank on him and also to refund him Rs. 18,300/ - towards registration charges & Rs. 20,000/ - towards miscellaneous expenses along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ -.
(2.) OPS Nos. 1 & 2 in its Joint reply while denying other averments of the complainant has stated that OP No. 1 is the cooperative society so the dispute related to C.G. Cooperative Societies Act and a consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to decide the same and also the complainant was not its consumer so the complaint was not entertainable. OPs Nos. 1 & 2 averred that as per its information the complainant had frequently got the house map modified during the process of construction thereby sought additional construction due to which cracks in wails had occurred which had been repaired. It was also averred that the complaint of the complainant was false and OP Nos. 1 & 2 had not committed any deficiency in service as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed. Op No. 3 in its reply while refuting other averments of the complaint stated that the complainant had got the map modified many times during the course of construction and an amount of Rs. 96,268/ - was still recoverable from him towards additional construction. Op No. 3 has averred that he is prepared to do the repair work, if any. Op No. 3 submitted valuation report of expert Shri Dipendra Padhi & Associates towards repair work. Op No. 3 averred that the complainant has produced the assessment of repair work exaggeratedly. Op No. 3 averred that he did not commit any deficiency in service thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
(3.) LEARNED District Forum after having perused the record produced before it and heard arguments of parties partly allowed the complaint as per the impugned order.;