ARIHANT ASSOCIATES AND ORS Vs. PUNIT AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Chattisgarh dated 18.07.2013 whereby the State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner developer with litigation cost of Rs.1000/-.

(2.) Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent entered into an agreement with the opposite party developer for purchase of a house measuring 1065 sq. ft. on a plot measuring 1516 sq. ft for consideration i.e. Rs.2,35,000/- for plot and Rs.9,15,000/- for construction. It is the case of the complainant that he paid total sums of Rs.11,50,000/- to the petitioner opposite party during the period w.e.f.02.12.2005 to 31.07.2008. it is alleged that opposite party delivered possession of the house with electricity connection to the complainant in October 2008. Thereafter, the complainant let out the said house to one Mahesh Rangari in October 2008. The said tenant within 10-12 days of the letting informed the complainant that construction work was of inferior quality. The floor had sunken at various places resulting in cracks. There was seepage in roof and wall and because of uneven level, there was water logging on the terrace. Even the paint work was also giving way. The complainant ,thus approached the opposite party to rectify the defects but in vain. Being aggrieved, the complainant got house inspected by an engineer who estimated cost of repairs to be Rs.1,25,000/-. Being aggrieved of the conduct of the opposite party, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint.

(3.) The opposite party in its written statement pleaded that complaint was barred by limitation. On merits it was pleaded that house with quality construction was handed over to the complainant and the complaint has been filed with a malafide intention to extort money from the opposite party.