(1.) -THIS petition under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is by the builder-opposite party. Though he succeeded before the District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent alleging deficiency in service, he lost in the State Commission where he did not choose to appear.
(2.) STATE Commission had noticed the defects in the construction of the residential flat which was agreed to be built by the petitioner for Rs. 2,13,057 and which amount he had received. State Commission had noticed the defects which were pointed out by the respondent-complainant and were certified by one of the engineers on the panel of Engineers of the Bank of Madura Ltd. The engineer gave an estimated cost of rectification amounting to Rs. 34,760.
(3.) IT is not disputed that there was agreement regarding construction of residential flat of the respondent by the petitioner. Complainant after getting possession, noticed defects in the flat and sought rectification thereof. Complainant supported his case by filing his affidavit. Petitioner did not appear before the District Forum nor did he file his written version. State Commission held that the averments in the complaint were supported by affidavit and other documents, these could not be rejected and that District Forum committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint. Complainant also led evidence to prove that he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,700 by way of rent for temporary accommodation which he had to occupy for delay in delivery of possession of the flat to him. Taking all the facts into consideration. State Commission directed the petitioner-opposite party to pay Rs. 36,460 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date when possession of the flat was delivered to the respondent-complainant. To that extent appeal of the complainant was allowed by the State Commission. We do not find any error in the order of the State Commission for us to take a different view. This revision petition is dismissed. R. P. dismissed.