PRAKRITI SHUKLA Vs. COMMISSIONER M P HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition seeks to challenge the order dated 6th June 2009 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (hereafter, the State Commission ). By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant against the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (hereafter, the Board ).

(2.) The case of the petitioner (the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal hereafter, the District Forum ) was that she was allotted a house by the Board under the latter s High Income Group (HIG) housing scheme in 2001, by way of hire purchase arrangement. Over a period, she deposited a sum of Rs. 3,57,767/- with the Board against the estimated price of Rs. 7,33,540/- but could not take over possession of the house because there were several defects in its construction. Allegedly, she wrote repeatedly to the Board to rectify the defects so that she could take over possession and also make the balance payment. However, the Board could hand over possession of an incomplete house only on 6th February 2006. As a result, she had to spend a sum of Rs. 3,10,644/- to make the house habitable. Aggrieved by the deficiencies in service rendered by the Board, she finally filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum praying for reimbursement of the said amount and compensation on various counts.

(3.) In its written version before the District Forum, the Board denied the allegations of deficiency and pleaded that it was because of the complainant s own defaults in payment that possession of the house could be given after a long delay of six years in February 2006. She did not pay the due instalments in time; so much so that she was in arrears of Rs. 86,823/- even in 2007. After considering the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant could not establish any deficiency in service against the Board. The State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the complainant s appeal. Hence, this revision petition.