(1.) Heard. In the interests of justice and for the reasons stated in the Application, the delay of 21 days in filing of the Revision Petition is condoned. The Application is disposed of. REVISION PETITION
(2.) Arguments on the Revision Petition are heard. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner had sold the subject flat to the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the Complainant"?) vide Registered Deed of Sale dated 19.11.2010. An agreement of sale of the flat was executed on 08.04.2009. According to the Complainant, he purchased the flat on believing the offer of the facilities including grilled windows, installation of power generators, health club and gymnasium, telephone security facilities etc. mentioned in the brochure of the Petitioner. After taking possession of the flat, he found that the grills on three windows were missing and the Complainant got them installed at his own expenses. He also found that the Complex did not have the generator facility, health club and gymnasium, telephone, security facility and thus he was deprived from enjoying those facilities, which were mentioned in the brochure by the Petitioner. He also noticed problems like wall soaking and water leakage through the sides of the window frames etc., which showed that the Petitioner had not constructed the flats properly. He consulted an engineer for assessment of the repair works and the engineer had assessed the cost of such repairs for Rs.64,085/-. Despite repeated requests by the Complainant, the Petitioner did not make any effort to remove the defects and pay the expenses, Complaint was filed alleging unfair trade practices and claimed refund of the repairing cost.
(3.) The defence of the Petitioner were several. It included that the Complaint was not maintainable in the present form and nature and that the District Forum did not have jurisdiction and also that there was no deficiency in service. The Petitioner took the stand that on receiving the Complaints, the representative of the Petitioner had gone to remove the defects by doing necessary repairs but the Complainant did not permit while the same defects found in other flats in the Complex were removed by the Petitioner by doing the repairs. While the Complainant led his evidence and also answered the questionnaire of the Petitioner, the Petitioner did not lead any evidence and did not examine any witness. After hearing the parties, the District Forum framed the following issues :