GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD Vs. ISHWARLAL MOTIRAM RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -IN this revision, challenge is to the order 31. 1. 2008 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad dismissing appeal filed by the opposite party petitioner Board against the order dated 27. 7. 2004 of a District Forum whereby Board was directed to pay amount of Rs. 2,09,000 with interest of the respondent/complainant along with cost of Rs. 3,000.

(2.) RESPONDENT was allotted House No. 2701 by the Board and a Sale Deed thereof was excuted before the Sub-Registrar on 13. 12. 1994. Possession of the house was alleged to have been given on the date of registration of Sale Deed. On 19. 6. 1995, the respondent wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer of the Board pointing out certain defects in the allotted house and to remove them. The details of the defects have been set out in para No. 1 (iv) of the order of District Forum. Again on 27. 6. 1995, the respondent reminded the Estate Manager of the inaction on part of Executive Engineer in not removing the defects. Shri Gulabdas Khasi, MLA also wrote a letter on behalf of the respondent to the Estate Manager and pursuant to this letter, the Estate Manager of the Board wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer to take necessary action in the matter, Shri Kashiram Rana, the then M. P. also wrote a letter dated 23. 3. 1997 to the Chairman of the petitioner Board. Respondent further wrote letters dated 25. 3. 1997, 12. 9. 1997 and 15. 9. 1997 and not getting any response, complaint was filed by him on 27. 7. 2000 which on contest was allowed by the District Forum in the manner noticed above and appeal against Forum's order was dismissed by the State Commission.

(3.) THRUST of argument advanced by Mr. Rahul Malhotra for the petitioner Board whom we have heard on admission, is that the respondent had not got a Local Commissioner appointed for ascertaining the nature and extent of the defects complained of and the bald statement of the respondent about there being defects in allotted house ought not to have been accepted by the Fora below. Petitioner-Board cannot be saddled with the expenses incurred on execution and registration of Sale Deed and the rate of interest was on higher side. Petitioner Board seem to have not sent any reply to any of the letters either sent by the respondent or by the said MLA and M. P. on respondent 's behalf denying the existence of defects in allotted house. In this backdrop, Fora below cannot be said to have acted erroneously in believing the bald statement of the respondent about existence of the defects in the house. To be noted that possession of the allotted house was taken back for the respondent by the Board on 21. 12. 1999. Since the Board had committed gross deficiency in service in not removing/repairing the defects, the respondent cannot be burdened with the expenses incurred on execution and registration of the house. In the facts and circumstances of case, award of interest at the given rate also cannot be said to be excessive. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.