MALKIAT SINGH Vs. SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 18-05-2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1147 of 2008 Malkiat Singh Vs. The Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Housefed Complex, Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. & Ors., by which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was allotted flat no. 521 on 6th floor by opposite party no. 1/respondent no. 1 and possession was delivered to the petitioner on 30-04-2002 after receiving entire amount of Rs.11.90 lakhs. Respondent no. 1 charged additional amount of Rs.1,000/- for creation of common fund which was to be used or maintenance of common services/area. It was also mentioned in the Brochure that monthly instalments as decided by opposite part no. 1 shall be payable by the members of this society for maintaining, regulating common areas and services. Petitioner was under impression that respondent no. 1 shall provide all amenities. It was further alleged that there was seepage of water in the lintel roof, which was brought to the notice of opposite parties. Many cracks developed in the walls. It was further alleged that respondent no. 1 was to provide two lifts and generator set for the use of allottee members. Complainant never withheld monthly payment of maintenance but resolution was passed by opposite party no. 1 that in case flatowner failed to pay monthly water supply charges, his connection would be disconnected and complainant's water connection would be discontinued. It was further alleged that only one lift was provided against provision of two lifts. Alleging deficiency on the part of respondents, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Complaint was not admitted against respondents' no. 2 & 3. Opposite party no. 1/respondent no. 1contested complaint before District Forum denied allegations of deficiency and further submitted that complaint is time barred and complainant himself is in arrears of maintenance charges, hence complaint be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint against which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard petitioner in person at admission stage and perused record.