MAYA KULDEEP PAUL Vs. PANKAJ J SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in this revision petition were the complainants before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (District Forum for short ). Their grievance against the respondents (developers) was that Flat No. C/202 purchased by them from the respondents/opposite parties suffered from numerous defects, in particular it developed wide cracks and deep fissures in the wall resulting in rainwater seeping inside the house, flooding the floor. Despite full payment towards the cost of the flat and assurance that the flat has been constructed with quality material, the defects were noticed to their horror only after living therein. The matter was brought to the notice of the respondents/opposite parties repeatedly but of no avail. The complainants allege that the respondents after having received the full payment towards the cost of the flat not only did not pay any heed to remove the defects but were totally indifferent and apathetic to the repeated approach in the matter. This forced them to file a complaint enumerating full details of the defects before the District Forum, seeking a compensation of Rs.4,32,272/-. The complaint was resisted by the respondents/opposite parties. Both the parties thereafter filed their respective evidence. The District Forum, on appreciation and consideration of the evidence, held that the respondents/opposite parties were deficient in rendering service but as against the claim of Rs.4,32,272/- it directed the respondents/opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of repair works to set-right the defects and in addition awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical inconvenience. It also awarded cost of Rs.2000/- jointly/severally to be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of its order. The onus for payment of the sums was to devolve jointly/severally on both the respondents/opposite parties.

(2.) The respondents/opposite parties thereafter challenged the order of the District Forum before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission for short) in Appeal No.1479 of 1998. The State Commission, after hearing both the parties, while maintained the finding of the District Forum that the respondents/opposite parties were deficient in rendering service, however, reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by this order of the State Commission reducing the award of compensation that the original complainants have filed this revision petition for the restoration of the award in their favour given by the District Forum.

(3.) Petitioner No.2 has appeared in person while Mr. Manu Beri, Advocate, Proxy Counsel has appeared for respondent no.1. Insofar as respondent no.2 is concerned, he is directed to be proceeded ex-parte in view of the affidavit of petitioner no.2, stating therein that when he visited the premises of respondent no.2, M/s Unique Developers on 08.10.2009 to serve the dasti notice in person, Shri Jayesh Shah, one of the partners of M/s Unique Developers, refused to accept and returned the said notice to him.