SMITA ROY Vs. EXCEL CONSTRUCTION BILASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, there is challenge to order dated 23.3.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short as 'State Commission'). Vide impugned order, State Commission has dismissed the complaint of the appellant. Along with the appeal, appellant filed an application for condonation of delay. However, no period has been mentioned in the application. As per office report, there is delay of 26 days in filing of the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is condoned.

(2.) Brief facts are that appellant/complainant filed complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as 'Act') alleging deficiency in service against the respondents/opposite parties. It is alleged that appellant booked flat Nos. 205 and 305 on the second and third storeys of multi storey complex known as "Vaishali Pride" by way of an agreement deed 11.4.2008 for consideration of Rs. 18,00,000, but she had deposited Rs. 20,16,000 towards cost of flat, 3 phase electric meter, registry fee and towards charges of other work. It is further alleged that at the time of registry of sale deed, respondent No. 1 had shown proposed map of "Vaishali Pride" site and also the approved map of Municipal Corporation, according to which flat Nos. 205 and 305 were shown facing east side and each flat was shown consisting of 2 bed rooms, kitchen, 3 toilets and balcony and after having liked those two flats were booked. Sale deed of said flats was registered on 17.4.2008 for which cost and other charges totalling Rs. 20,16,000 were paid and "No Dues Certificate" was issued by respondent No. 1 on 21.4.2009.

(3.) It is also alleged that respondent No. 1 got fraudulently the signatures of Ranjan Roy, (father of the complainant) on the document of handing over possession of the flats. When appellant went to take possession of aforesaid flats, she noticed that aforesaid flats had already been allotted to other person and he was in its possession also. On her lodging complaint with respondent No. 1, she was told that her flats would be provided soon and till that time she was advised to occupy flat Nos. 206 and 306 which were facing west side and were in a shape of a duplex house. The construction of those flats was inferior. It is further alleged that appellant was compelled to live in those flats which as per approved map are numbering 206 and 306. It is also alleged that appellant was provided flats by respondent No. 1, which were other than what was booked in terms of agreement and also as approved by Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. Respondents with an intention to derive additional benefit, handed over her actual flats to another person and its such act is indicative of unfair trade practice. It is further alleged that respondents collected from her Rs. 25,000 towards three phase electric connection and transformer whereas it spent Rs. 2,215 towards meter and Rs. 7,000 towards transformer totalling Rs. 9,000 only. A notice was also sent to the respondent on 25.11.2009 by Regd. post but the same was refused. Appellant has prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to provide flat Nos. 205 and 305 as per agreement and as per approval map of Municipal Corporation. Appellant has also sought refund of Rs. 16,000 collected in excess towards electric meter and transformer and payment of compensation of Rs. 20,00,000, towards mental agony with cost of proceedings.