Y.S. SRIVASATAVA Vs. PRESS ASSOCIATION CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short 'The Act') against the impugned order dated 13.02.2018, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 596/2016, wherein the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum, which dismissed the complaint.

(2.) The relevant facts for the disposal of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short 'the District Forum'), New Delhi against the Opposite Party-the Housing Society (PACGHS) for reimbursement of money spent on repairing the original defect in the toilet/washroom i.e. un-connected pipe from the toilet to the sewage. The complainant made several reminders and waited for 9 months. The complainant took an estimate from the plumber of society for the said work but the society had not sent the society plumber for the repair. Therefore, complainant got the work done by some other plumber and fixed the new western toilet at his own expenses; the bill was submitted to the OP for the reimbursement but OP did not reimburse. Therefore, for the alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant filed a complaint before District Forum.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP, Housing Society by filing a written statement. The OP contended that the complainant was in possession of the flat for the last 34 years and in the year 1977-78, he let it for rent. Complainant never complained about the non-functional state of the toilet during this period. Moreover, the bill submitted by the complainant did not mention about any repair of the toilet on account of construction fault. It was also contended that the job of repair, was not within the scope of activities of the OP.