- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant (O.P.) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (henceforth called "1986 Act") against the order dated 17.12.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G) (henceforth called District Forum ), in Complaint Case No.135/2012, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant (respondent) under Section 12 of the1986 Act, has been partly allowed and the appellant (O.P.) has been directed to pay Rs.62,000/ - to the respondent (complainant) and also pay a sum of Rs.20,000/ - towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/ - towards Advocate fee and cost of litigation.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case before the District Forum are that the complainant/respondent had purchased a house M.I.G. Duplex 123, Phase 4, Kabir Nagar, Raipur from the appellant (O.P.) and possession order was issued by the appellant (O.P.) in favour of the respondent (complainant) on 24.07.2010. On the basis of said possession order, the respondent (complainant) took possession of the said house on 19.08.2010. Prior to taking possession of the said house the respondent (complainant) inspected the said house and found that the construction of the house is below standard quality. He made complaint to the appellant (O.P.) on 19.08.2010. The respondent (complainant) wrote letters to the appellant (O.P.) on 22.01.2011, 07.05.2011 and 23.07.2011. The house of the respondent (complainant) was inspected by the appellant (O.P.) on 15.11.2010 in which the complaint regarding the construction, is confirmed, which is from sl. No.1 to 16 but in spite of it, the complaint of the respondent (complainant) was not redressed by the appellant (O.P.). Then again, the respondent (complainant) made complaint vide letter dated 03.12.2011 but even then his complaint was not redressed. The respondent (complainant) sent notice to the appellant (O.P.) through Advocate on 13.03.2012 which was received by the appellant (O.P.) on 19.03.2012, but in spite of it, neither the appellant (O.P.) replied the notice nor redressed the complaint of the respondent (complainant). Therefore, the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.62,000/ - which is the cost of the repairing of the house, a sum of Rs.25,000/ - towards compensation for mental agony, cost of litigation.
(3.) THE appellant (O.P.) resisted the complaint and refuted the allegation levelled by the respondent (complainant) against the appellant (O.P.). The appellant (O.P.) pleaded in the written statement that the respondent (complainant) took possession of the said house on 19.08.2010 in good condition and he himself certified that when he took possession of the house, the same was in good condition. Appellant (O.P.) further pleaded that the appellant (O.P.) has not committed any deficiency in service, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, learned District Forum partly awarded the complaint and awarded compensation in favour of the respondent (complainant) as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this order.;