SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER OP UHBVNL Vs. MITTAL STRIPS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a shop being constructed by the respondent, Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Original allottees were Jitender Singh and Mahendra Singh, who subsequently transferred it to one Smt. Shakuntala Jhilani, who in turn transferred the shop to the appellant/complainant which was agreed to by the respondent vide letter dated 23.8.1991. Original price of the commercial shop was fixed at Rs. 1,52,145 of which 70% was paid. Subsequently the price was escalated and the area of shop which was originally indicated as 304.29 sq. ft. was increased to 354.92 sq. ft. Additional demands were made for meeting the electricity charges as well as for maintenance/security which was not acceptable to the appellant; possession was also offered late, i.e., in 1992 with considerable delay. When the issues about the area, cost escalation and other demands raised by the respondent were not getting settled, including the rebate of 3% promised by the respondent, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties by its order dated 14.10.1997 granted the following reliefs:

(3.) Dissatisfied with these reliefs, this appeal has been filed by the appellant before us.