P B DESAI Vs. PRAJAPATI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 23rd October, 1991 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat in Original Complaint No. 186 of 1991. The State Commission has directed the respondent/opposite party to file an application before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the registration of VIS AMO Co-operative Housing Society and for executing the Deed of Conveyance after the formation of the Cooperative Housing Society. For this purpose, the parties have to execute the necessary documents. The appellants have challenged the order of the State Commission on the ground that the said order was passed without giving any opportunity to them to reply or filing any counter affidavit and that the copy of the additional affidavit of the respondents was not made available to them. The main grievance of the appellants is that they have been provided space which is less than the area agreed upon and therefore, they were entitled to refund for the excess price recovered. The respondents submitted an additional affidavit regarding the measurements of the flat premises and that though the affidavit was not made available to the appellants, the State Commission decided the matter relying on the said affidavit filed by the respondents.

(2.) ON a perusal of the order of the State Commission, it is evident that the State Commission has gone into the question of the area of the flats in some detail. As the State Commission observed, the agreement between the parties does not state whether the area to be provided for the respondents was in terms of carpet area or built up area. The agreement refers only to the plan sanctioned by the panchayat. The plans sanctioned by the panchayat authorities was also produced before the State Commission and it found that the total area in all the flats, except with some exception, is more than the area shown in the plan sanctioned by the panchayat authorities. The State Commission has specifically observed that Mr. Bhatt, Counsel for the appellant could not dispute this contention before the State Commission. The State Commission further observed that the area was also measured by the architect and "after going through the aforesaid plans and the affidavit, Mr. Bhatt does not press for the above contentions", i.e., the actual area being less than what had been agreed I to in the contract. The State Commission also very pertinently pointed out that the possession of the flats has been handed over in 1987. Most of the complainants took possession in 1988 but the dispute was raised in 1991. It, therefore, rightly observed that the dispute appears to be belated, apart from absence of any evidence to support the allegations of the appellant complainants. In view of the specific finding of the State Commission and its observations that the Counsel for the appellant did not press his contentions on the above point, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.