M N NAIK Vs. SHREE SIDDHIVINAYAK DURGADEVI DEVELOPERS & ANR ; EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD, PUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the impugned order dated 11.10.2010, passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short, 'State Commission') in (First Appeal No.145 of 2009).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant had purchased a row house from the Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 Developer as per agreement dated 04.07.1996. The Petitioner stated that he had received the possession thereon on 24.08.1997. Thereafter, according to him, due to leakage, his furniture kept in the hall was damaged Further, the 1000 liter RCC Tank for water as per sanctioned plan was not provided and instead a 500 liter capacity tank was given. Earthing was not provided to the main electric connection and the area of row house was less by 325.56 sq. ft and the bathroom was also small. He further stated that on his request an Architect was appointed and his report was filed before the District Forum. The Petitioner/Complainant agreed with the findings in the report except for the area of the row house. The District Forum vide their order dated 19.12.2008 after hearing both the parties dismissed the consumer complaint holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Builder.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the Appeal, observed as under;