SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by Shri Sushil KumarGupta against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh dated 6th October, 1994 whereby the District Forum ordered refund of an amount of Rs. 16,094/- but rejected the claim of the complainant for making his house habitable for Rs. 54,000/-. The plea of the appellant-complainant before this Commission is that when the possession of the house was delivered to him the house was found to be lacking in many of its material, essential and inseparable aspects like the doors, electricity fixtures, sanitary fixtures; that house implies a structure equipped with all such fixtures and fittings which are essential in order to make the same a 'habitable unit'; that the value of the items required to compete the house at the time of possession was Rs. 54,000/- though the present value would not be less than Rs. 94,000/-.

(2.) We have heard the Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the appellant has filed to show us any correspondence or notice issued by him to the respondent that the house was without various items on which he had spent Rs. 54,000/- and that he spent this amount after giving due notice to the opposite party. The appellant-complainant had taken possession of the house and had got the necessary provisions provided therein at his own costs, without any notice to the opposite party. Further it would not be possible to take note of this plea unless certificate given by him, while taking possession of the house is shown to have been given by him under any duress, for which there is no evidence on record.

(3.) The plea of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the said claim has been rejected by the Forum on the ground that it is universal practice of the construction Companies and Housing Boards that in case of self-financing Schemes they deliver the possession of the house in a semi-finished condition as the allottees want their houses to be finished according to their own choice and taste. In the present case the appellant-complainant has taken the possession of the house without any protest. He has neither sent any complaint/notice to the respondent-Opposite party for correcting the defects of providing facilities which according to him were required to be provided before handing over the possession. He has spent, according to him, a sum of Rs. 54,000/- to make the house habitable according to his own choice but the respondent opposite party cannot be burdened with the costs as this has been done by the appellant-complainant at his own level. Moreover no details of deficiency are on record.