AVANTTI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vs. OJAL LADDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.09 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, the State Commission) in appeal No. 655/08, the original opposite party, M/s Avantti Builders & Developers (to be referred hereinafter in short as the builder) has filed the present petition purportedly u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal by slightly modifying the order dated 2.09.08 passed by the District Forum, Raipur in complaint case No.372/07. By the said order, the District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the complainants, Smt. Ojal Laddha and Sh. Sandeep Thakur Laddha in the following manner:- Hence on the basis of aforesaid discussion it is ordered by admitting the complaint filed by the complainant that within one month from the order:-

(2.) In appeal, the State Commission has modified the said order which reads as under :- It is directed to the opposite party on the basis of above discussion that if the said two cheques given by the complainant of Rs.2,50,000/- and 2,50,000/- are not available to him then give the written undertaking that the cheques of the related numbers are not with him and he will not use the cheques of the said numbers. The complainant will pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.five lakh) to the opposite party by obtaining the undertaking in aforesaid manner and the opposite party will deliver the possession to the complainant after removing all the defects in the complainants bungalow mentioned in writing on 27.05.07 and after the proper arrangement of electricity and purified water supply by the water purifier. Having regards to the circumstances of the case amount awarded by the District Forum for the mental harassment and cost stands confirmed since it is proper. Appeal is disposed of accordingly with these directions.

(3.) During the course of hearing of the petition, we were informed that aggrieved by the same very impugned order dated 29.10.09 passed by the State Commission, the respondents/complainants had also filed Revision Petition No. 468/10 which came up for hearing before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission and was disposed of vide order dated 11.02.10 by this Commission at the stage of preliminary hearing itself by observing as under:- The only grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the provision of grills in the house. State Commission has dealt with this aspect in its order and declined the relief regarding provision of grills by observing in para-18 of its order as under: Apart from this, on behalf of the complainants it was also mentioned that the grills etc. have not been fixed on doors and windows. Although there does not appear to be any contract or assurance for the fixing of the grills, though it is essential for safety, yet there is no mention of the grills in any of the documents and the details of the defects of construction prepared in the presence of Shri Ravi Kumar Shukla, there is no mention of the same in it. In these circumstances we do not find just to give any directions regarding fixing of grills. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the respondent was not obliged to provide the grills as there was no mention of the grills in any of the documents and even in the details of defects of construction prepared in the presence of Shri Ravi Kumar Shukla, i.e., the engineer who had accompanied the petitioner/complainant at the time of inspection of the bungalow. Dismissed.