R BALAMMA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -the present appeal has been filed under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 16.9.1997, passed by the learned District Forum -III (Janakpuri), New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.447/1997. By the impugned order the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant Smt. R. Balamma against the respondent DDA.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant Smt. R. Balamma purchased flat No.685, Sector A, Pocket C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi from the respondent DDA and had takes over its possession on 8.3.1990. According to the appellant, there were number of defects in the said flat at the time of taking over the possession and she reported the matter to the authorities concerned, for removal of the alleged defects, but they failed to do so and hence she filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent DDA. The following defects were pointed by the appellant in the complaint: (1) Seepage in room No.1 attached to the bathroom. (2) Damage of the outer wall due to this seepage. (3) Leakage to the Overhead Tank. (4) Seepage in 2nd bath room and kitchen from W. C. of the top floor, i. e. , flat No.687. (5) Absence of water supply in the bath room.

(3.) THE version of the respondent before the District Forum was that the flat allotted to the appellant was in good condition when the possession was delivered except some minor defects which were generally removed after the occupation of the flat. The respondent also stated that all the defects mentioned by the appellant in the complaint were removed to the satisfaction of the appellant and a certificate was obtained from the appellant on 6.9.1993 to that effect. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as all the defects pointed by the appellant had been removed to her satisfaction. Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant as no deficiency was proved against the respondent.