C G HOUSING BOARD Vs. DHARAMPAL, S/O SHRI CHANDRADEV

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.