SHIVA REAL ESTATE (COMFORT HOMES) Vs. NITIN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 against the Order dated 30.11.2016 passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No.1057 of 2013.

(2.) The brief facts as per the Respondent No.1/Complainant are that Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 invited applications from people for allotment of flats in its society, assuring better facilities and other amenities, as per the brochure. The said project was shown to be duly approved by Respondents No.2 and 3 and Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3. The Respondent No.1 entered into agreement with Petitioner on 27.12010 for purchase of two bed rooms flat no.43-A, 4th floor and took the possession, vide letter dated 01.09.2011. The sale deed was got registered by the Petitioner in his favour on 25.01.2012, for which he paid Rs.27,000.00 as maintenance charges thereof to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 came to know within 3-4 months after taking possession that there were deficiencies in the quality of construction and work and the entire building looked dilapidated and its construction looked as if it was many years old. He informed the Petitioner about the deficiency, but to no effect. The discrepancies in the construction were as below:

(3.) Upon notice, Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 filed written reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint was misconceived and groundless. The District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute involved in the complaint. The complaint was baseless and a flagrant abuse of process of law, besides being vexatious and was liable to be dismissed under Sec. 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Respondent No.1 had visited the site a number of times before purchase of the flat. If the complainant was not interested to live in the flat, he could have taken refund of the entire amount from OP. Petitioner denied the poor quality of construction work and material used therein. The complainant had signed the possession letter on 27.12.2010 and the problems were pointed out by him six months thereafter. When the complainant purchased the flat, the building was 70% complete and all the dimensions and covered area were physically visualized and had never been changed after that. The Respondent No.1 physically stood in the flat before its allotment to him. The foundation stone of the building was laid in April, 2008. As per brochure, it is conceptual and architect or builder reserved the right to amend and modify the same as per the need. At the time of sale deed, the complainant had stated that he was satisfied with the provisions, area, terms and conditions and would not go beyond the terms of conveyance deed. The bending noticed by the complainant might be due to deflection due to rainy season, when the place was wet. Extra strengthening had been provided by constructing brick pillars in middle ground floor. Some of the photographs produced by the Respondent No.1 regarding tiles and other work did not belong to his house and photographs of some unsold flats have been annexed by him. The Respondent No.1 had taken possession after being fully satisfied that the work was completed and as per the sale deed. It was clearly mentioned that the Respondent No.1 was satisfied with the lift, finishing, other finishing work, regarding size, sewerage plant, street lights etc. The wooden chaukhats had been provided as it made less noise, looked more elegant and could be painted with smooth finish. Further, they were charging less than the charges of the electricity department. The project had been passed for 6 floors and Respondent No.1 was aware of this fact and it was evident from the sale deeds of the floors. The Respondent No.1 in the sale deed undertook that any expenses done by the Petitioner any Govt. agency would be shared by him and through this complaint, he wanted to avoid the sharing of payment made by the Petitioner in raising boundary wall, elevating the concrete roads, rearranging the pipes etc. with the level of sewerage laid by the MC. He got the sale deed after 6 months of taking over possession, but during that period he failed to come forward with any of the discrepancies and suddenly filed the present complaint. On merits, it was averred that after being satisfied with the structure and other amenities, complainant had signed in front of Tehsildar on the sale deed. The Petitioner had provided two lifts which are working. It was denied that the Petitioner promised the provision of three lifts. The electricity department had already given connection and the complainant was to approach the Electricity Department for the connection. The inverter wiring was to be provided for fans and tubes, whereas all the power points have been separated from the fans and tube lights. The Petitioner did not promise modular kitchen at all. In para 2(d) of the agreement, it was specifically mentioned that no built in wardrobes, cabinets, furniture/pelmets etc. shall be provided by the developer in the said flat. The Respondent No.1 was member of Comfort Homes Residents Association which had been taking care of cleanliness and water supply. It had already provided 2nd bore-well and there were two tanks for alternate emergency. Fire-fighting arrangement for the entire building had been provided and the Respondent No.1 had agreed that the pipe for the purpose already existed. The left over works would be completed soon. In the agreement, there was no mention of textured wall paints. Proper street lights had been provided in the society. It was admitted qua the receipt of Rs.27,000.00 for providing the amenities. The sewerage lines are laid much below the ground level i.e. 10 feet or more and site discharge level is 4' below ground level. Power generator of 63 KVA is available in the society for elevators. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, Petitioner prayed for dismissal of the complaint.