CHHATTISGARH GRIH NIRMAN MANDAL Vs. SUNITA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (in short, 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 341 of 2015 dtd. 16/2/2016 arising out of order dtd. 14/8/2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (in short, 'District Forum') in Complaint No. 14/226.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that it had advertised the sale of houses for Economically Weaker Ss. (EWS) in World Bank Colony, Kurud at a price of Rs.3,50,000.00. A booking amount of Rs.200.00 was prescribed. The respondent was allotted house no. EWS 1499 by draw of lots on payment of registration fees of Rs.35,000.00. A sum of Rs.3,33,000.00 including the registration amount was paid by respondent after taking a loan of Rs.2,88,000.00 from the Bank. The balance of Rs.17,000.00 was to be paid at the time of possession. However, as the construction was incomplete and alleged to be of poor quality, the respondent approached the District Forum and prayed that the necessary repairs be completed within 2 months and the possession be given by February 2012 along with compensation as interest at 18% till date of possession, Rs.50,000.00 towards mental harassment and Rs.10,000.00 for litigation cost. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner and it was stated that there were 100 houses to be constructed. On account of delays by the contractor entrusted with the work, the contract was cancelled and the process of appointing a fresh contractor had taken time as the rates quoted were high. It was stated that the work would be completed within 6 months but there was no provision for a boundary wall for the house. It was also stated that the final rate would be fixed and possession handed over on payment of the balance amount. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

(3.) The District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the respondents and held that: