NARENDER KUMAR S JAIN Vs. ASHOK D ADHYAPAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in both these revision petitions is against the common order dated 1.12.2006 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore by which the State Commission dismissed appeal Nos. 1605 of 2005 and 1606 of 2005 filed by the petitioners and also dismissed the cross-appeal Nos.1668 of 2005 and 1669 of 2005 filed by the respondent against the orders passed by the District Forum, Belgaum in complaint Nos.80 of 2004 and 81 of 2004. Since both these revision petitions filed by the two complainants are against the common order of the State Commission, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of these petitions are that considering their requirement for residence of about 1500 sq.ft., the petitioners who are husband and wife, booked two small adjacent flats in question with the respondent/opposite party for their bonafide residential use. After the construction of the flats, sale deeds were executed in favour of the complainants/petitioners and they were also put in possession of the respective flats. After taking possession of the flats, the petitioners filed two separate complaints in question before the District Forum alleging that there were defects in the construction of the flats. According to the complainants, there were leakages and cracks in the walls. In order to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the complaints, the District Forum appointed a Commissioner to inspect the flats and submit a report. The Commissioner after carrying out inspection of the flats, submitted a report pointing out that there were certain defects as referred to in the order of the District Forum. After the receipt of the said report, the OP/respondent appointed an engineer to rectify the defects in the construction by paying a sum of Rs.60,200/-. This fact is not under dispute. The District Forum vide its separate orders dated 30.8.2005 in both the complaints partly allowed the complaints and gave similar directions to the OP which may be reproduced thus:

(3.) Both the parties challenged the orders of the District Forum by filing their respective appeals, referred to above, before the State Commission. The complainants/petitioners prayed for increase in relief and the OPs prayed for setting aside the orders of the District Forum. The State Commission after considering the contentions raised by the parties in their appeals, dismissed all the four appeals thereby upholding the relief granted by the District Forum to the petitioners. Not satisfied with the partial relief granted by the fora below, the present revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners/complainants praying for enhancement in the relief granted by the District Forum while partly accepting their complaints and setting aside of the impugned order of the State Commission.