ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. SACHITANANDA RATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opposite-party is appellant in all these seven appeals.

(2.) Case of complainants is that each of them applied for allotment of a house under Balia Panda Housing Scheme of the appellant. After taking delivery of house, it was found by them that the house had not been constructed in accordance with the plan under which advertisement-inviting applications was issued. Construction of house was also defective. Facilities appertaining for enjoyment of the house were not provided. Rate of the house was arbitrarily enhanced. Accordingly, complaints were filed in the District Forum. Case of opposite-party is that there was delay in construction which was unavoidable. On account of escalation of price, cost was increased. There was no defect in construction or deviation in the plan and all actions have been taken with approval of the Board. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service.

(3.) Complainants got the houses verified by a retired Chief Engineer who gave a report relating to the defect in construction of the houses. Opposite-party examined an Engineer before the District Forum who stated that there is no defect in the construction. Considering the materials as produced before the District Forum, it held that complainants are entitled to the direction to be given and has, therefore, given the direction. This is grievance of appellant.