This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority, against the order dated 14.12.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.1473 of 2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in Kaushalpuri Housing Scheme of the petitioner, complainant/respondent deposited amount for registration for allotment of HIG house. Allotment was made on 6.1.2004 for Rs.7,04,263/-. Complainant paid the whole amount where excess amount of Rs.1,57,747/- was paid. Possession was to be given within one year from the date of allotment. Physical possession was given on 4.8.2007. The house given had a lot of defects like bathroom and toilet were half constructed, electrical wiring was not complete etc.
3. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Faizabad, (in short the ‘District Forum’) which was allowed vide its order dated 03.02.2012 as follows:-
“The opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,05,559/- (Rupees One lakh five thousand five hundred fifty nine only) towards additional cost of 44.5 sq. meter taken from the complainant may be returned to him and the amount of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) in the head of low quality material used in the construction of the house and incomplete work, also simple interest at the rate of 12percent on the total amount of Rs.1,55,559/- (rupees one lakh fifty five thousand five hundred fifty nine only) from December, 2008 till the actual date of payment and in the head of compensation the opposite party make payment of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order. The complaint at this limit is accepted.”
4. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, opposite party/petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed vide its order dated 14.12.2017.
5. Hence, this revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is extra land in the plot for which the price has been charged from the complainant. The complainant filed complaint for refund of those charges. The District Forum allowed the complaint and has asked the petitioner to refund Rs.1,05,559/-. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum. The fact of the matter is that whatever land is given to the allottee, the same has been paid for by the allottee. The size of the plot is always tentative at the time of allotment but when actual possession is given, there may be some variation in the plot size. In the present case, some additional area is included in the plot that was allotted to the complainant, therefore, additional price was taken from the complainant. Both the fora below have not considered this aspect and have passed the erroneous orders. The learned counsel further pointed out that all other allottees have taken the possession without any complaint, however, only this allottee has mentioned various shortcomings in the house and District Forum has accepted those shortcomings and ordered compensation. Similarly, in the appeal the State Commission has also not considered the assertions made by the petitioner authority.
7. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. In respect of the question of additional land included in the house of the complainant, the District Forum has observed the following:-
“ The complainant has not mentioned of giving any additional land in his house by the Authority and nor the opposite party in its written statement has mentioned of giving additional land of 44.45 square meter to the complainant and nor in this connection the opposite party has submitted any proof before the Forum.”
8. Similarly, the State Commission has observed the following in respect of the additional land:-
“In addition to this on merits by the appellant it has not been apprised that the area of the road how was included in the house and what was need of that. The area of the road should be left for the road. If any policy decision for inclusion of area of the road with the house has been taken then the copy of the said rule was to be annexed with appeal or complaint letter that what is such a reason that the area of the road has been included with the land of the house. If there is area of the road then that should be included with the road and that should not be used with the house. The copy of the possession letter is not on the file from which it is clear that the possession of how much land has been given to the respondent/complainant. Therefore, there is no propriety of taking the price of the additional land. The appellant has not submitted any order of the Authority Board relating to change of the land of the road into land-use. Therefore, the land of the road may be included in the road nor may be given to the allottee.”
9. From the above, I totally agree with the observations made by the State Commission because the land of the road should not be given to any of the houses even if, the complainant wanted to include in his house. The State Commission has already passed the order that the land should be included in the road. If this is to be done, I do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant should pay the price of the additional land.
10. In respect of the defects in construction, the State Commission has observed the following:-
“So far as the question of incurring of expenditure on the use of inferior quality material and on incomplete work is concerned, in this connection the report of Ld. Civil Engineer S.K.Srivastava has been submitted before the District Forum in which it has been stated that in the house the inferior quality material has been used and the construction is not according to the standards. On not having the glasses in the windows, not having of doors, these sho
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
rtcomings as stated by the complainant have been mentioned by the Ld. District Forum in its judgment. Therefore, the order of compensation of Rs.50,000/- is also justified.” 11. From the above observations of the State Commission, it is clear that there were serious defects in the house and District Forum has rightly awarded compensation for the same to the complainant. 12. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 14.12.2017 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No.799 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage.