SHRIKANT BUDHIYA S/O SHRI ANTULAL BUDHIYA, MAIN ROAD, ANTULAL AND SONS PETROL PUMP KORBA TESHIL AND DISTRICT Vs. SEEMA SHRIVASTAVA S/O LATE S.K. SHRIVASTAVA, FLAT NO. 208/209, BUDHIYA ENCLAVE, SARKANDA, BILASPUR C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, by a real estate developer, is directed against the order dated 25.6.2015, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri at Raipur (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.FA/15/317. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 29.5.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur in CC/15/2013. By the said order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner for selling a flat to her on 23.3.2012 for a sale consideration of Rs. 24,25,000.00, with several defects including peeling off of the plaster; use of inferior quality of products leading to burning of electricity meter and bathroom fittings etc., the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 3,50,000.00 for repairing the defects in the flat within one month with the default stipulation of interest at the rate of 9% if the said amount was not paid within one month; Rs. 2,00,000.00 as damages and Rs. 5,000.00 as cost of litigation. When the Petition had come up for motion hearing, notice to the Respondent was confined to the question of quantum of compensation only.

(2.) The main grievance of the Petitioner is that since the Complaint regarding the afore-noted defects was made for the first time only by way of the Complaint, which was filed after a lapse of about 6 months of delivery of the possession, the said defects had crept in because of lack of maintenance of the flat.

(3.) Having perused the documents on record, including the inspection report by a Civil Engineer, quoted in the impugned order, we are of the view that in so far as the concurrent finding recorded by both the Foras below, relating to the deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner is concerned, being based on a cogent material, referred to in the impugned order, though not filed with the present Petition, does not warrant any interference. It is affirmed accordingly.