(1.) In response to an advertisement issued by respondents, petitioner registered herself as applicant on deposit of requisite charges. In draw of lots she was declared successful and MIG flat no.4556 on ground floor in Sector-70, Mohali was allocated to her. After the price of flat was enhanced from Rs.6,30,000/- to Rs.8,05,400/- she made representation with respondents and it is not in dispute that enhanced price was reduced considerably, pursuant to which she took possession of the flat on 20th August, 1998. The complications followed thereafter, as after taking possession of flat in question, she noticed a number of deficiencies in construction of flat, use of sub-standard material in construction, deficiency with sanitary fittings, electric wiring, fittings of doors and windows, laying of floors etc. , which in her estimation would require cost of Rs.2 Lakhs to be spent to bring their construction in order. Matter was taken up with respondent-authority. As matter could not be settled despite persuasion, a consumer complaint was filed with District Forum. Complaint was resisted by respondents holding that since she had purchased flat in question and had also taken possession thereof, on visual inspection of construction she cannot be permitted to raise objections with regard to deficiencies in construction of flat as it was open to her to either point out those defects when possession was taken or to not accept the offer. Both parties led evidence by way of affidavits.
(2.) As for authority of respondents, for enhancement of cost of the flat, the allotment letter enjoins that the cost shown at the time of advertisement was tentative, which was subject to revision and hence grievance raised by petitioner about enhancement of cost of flat to be unjust was untenable.
(3.) The construction was visited by one Shri Satyapal H. Rajpal of S. H. Rajpal and Associates, Architects, Planners and Engineers, who submitted report on 31st August, 1999 showing certain deficiencies with the construction of flat. A retired chief engineer was also appointed as local commissioner, who submitted his report on 1st June, 2005, who too noticed deficiencies in construction, particularly the wooden work of the flat which was not upto mark. The workmanship was also of poor quality. District Forum having analyzed evidences put on record and regard being had to conduct of the petitioner in withholding installments of cost, finding no merit dismissed complaint. Though State Commission in appeal took notice of deficiencies in construction which were incorporated in the report of local commissioner, which to bring construction in order would require Rs.1,50,000/- to be spent, did not find merit, this being not a case of outright sale but of a hire purchase. State Commission having found fault with petitioner in withholding installments, particularly when ownership too was not with her for having purchased flat on hire purchase basis dismissed appeal of petitioner. State Commission in its conclusive finding has taken notice of decision of Honble Apex Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and Ors. etc. Vs. Shantikunj Investments Pvt. Ltd. etc., 2006 4 SCC 109. As petitioner had withheld installments, respondents took resumption of flat in question. Grievance raised by petitioner about withholding of installments by her for there being deficiencies in construction of flat, does not impress us for two reasons. Firstly, no eyebrows were raised by her about deficiency in construction when she took possession of flat on 20th August, 1998. Grievance raised by her largely seemed to be a camouflage to withhold installments. It is not unlikely, as was observed by local commissioner, that these deficiencies might have cropped up with the construction then being 6-7 years old. Secondly, after she purchased flat on a hire purchase basis being quite conversant with quality of the construction, it was not open to her to raise grievance about deficiency in construction, particularly when transaction was as was held by State Commission was not an outright sale. We find no good reasons for interference in well reasoned finding of the State Commission, which had affirmed order of the District Forum. However, after payments towards installment due are released by petitioner, equity requires that respondents as was noticed by State Commission should make necessary repairs in the structure to the extent indicated in their order. Revision petition, in the circumstances, being without substance is dismissed with no order as to costs.