VENKATESH TRADING CO Vs. SECRETARY APMC KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 14.7.2003 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore dismissing appeal against the order dated 31.3.2003 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner purchased godown bearing No. 87, situated at Cotton Market Yarn, Nehru Ganj, Gulbarga from the respondent/opposite party for a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- in the year 1988. Roof of the godown fell on 13.11.1989. Petitioner alleged that collapse of roof was on account of use on inferior building materials, etc. by the respondent. Alleging deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking direction to the respondent to pay Rs. 2 lakhs by way of damages and Rs. 3 lakhs towards cost of re-construction of the godown. In the alternative, direction was sought to the respondent to reconstruct the said godown. In the written version, the respondent pleaded that it sold identical 23 godowns to the persons who were occupying them on licence basis. Out of sale consideration of Rs. 1,55,000/-, the petitioner paid sum of Rs. 38,750/- being 1/4th cost price besides 2 instalments and 18 instalments still remain to be paid by him. It was denied that roof fell down on account of inferior quality of materials as alleged. It was further alleged that collapse of roof was due to repair work of the godown undertaken by the petitioner without taking proper care for which the respondent was not responsible.

(3.) AS may be seen from the order of District Forum (copy at pp. 35-58), one of the points being point No. 5 framed by the District Forum for consideration was whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondent as alleged by petitioner. District Forum's order notices that petitioner did not produce any record to show that it had requested APMC to send the building materials for examination to the expert or had taken any steps before the Forum to test it. Vithal H. Agarthed, then working as Assistant Engineer and under whose supervision 25 godowns including the godown in question were constructed, was examined as RW 2 by the respondent. Taking note of said fact, statement of R.W. 2 and disbelieving the statement of Arun Kumar C. Chawda, P.W. 2 and Madan Lal Daga, one of the partners of petitioner firm, the District Forum reached the finding that petitioner had failed to prove that roof collapse was due to inferior quality of building materials as alleged by the petitioner. It was not the finding returned by District Forum that collapse of roof was on account of repair work undertaken by the petitioner as noticed in said para. In our view, even if State Commission misread the finding of District Forum as noticed in para 6 it was of little help to the petitioner in view of categorical finding recorded to the above effect by the District Forum. Further, reading of said para No. 6 as a whole would show that the observation by State Commission that building worth more than Rs. 3 lakhs had been sold to petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- was made only by way of passing remark and it does not affect the merits of the case. We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.