Case nº Revision Petition No. 1541/1542/1543/1544/1546/1547/1548/1549/1550/1551/1552 Of 2014 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, January 08, 2015 (case 1. Bankim V Pandya & 2 Ors., 2. Ketan V Pandya, Partner of M/S Sky Lark Builders, 3. Sky Lark Vs 1. Samson Neval Rajwadi, 2. Subhas P. Christy, 3. Kantilal A. Mecwan, 4. Ashok S. Rathod, 5. Rozy Denis Alwares, 6. Vency Oliver, 7. Subroto Biswas, 8. Dhansukh A. Nayak, 9. Marsel J. Mecwan, 10. Arvind P. Mecwan, 11. Nethelin R. Mecwan, 12. S. Kumar Iyer)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Akhil Dave, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Subroto Biswas, Adv. |
| President | Mr. D.K. Jain, President and Mr. Vinay Kumar, Member |
| Resolution Date | January 08, 2015 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
These Revision Petitions by the builders are directed against common order dated 26.6.2013 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short ''the State Commission''), in Appeal Nos.515-526 of 2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission has upheld order dated 28.4.2009 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Vadodara, in Consumer Complaint No.631 of 1992 and in other identical complaints. By the said order the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to pay to each of the Complainants a sum of Rs.39,130/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization towards estimated expenses incurred by them for getting the shortcomings/defects in the flat allotted to them by the Petitioners, rectified.
Since the issue raised in all the Revision Petitions is the same, these are being disposed of by this common order.
The grievance of the Complainants, the Respondents herein, in the Complaint was that after taking over the possession of the flats allotted to them in the scheme, named Lourdes Apartments, launched by the Petitioner, sometime in the year 1992, they discovered that not only the construction material used was of inferior quality, certain fittings were also not of specified quality, as promised at the time of allotment of the flats. On appraisal of the evidence on record, including the report of one Shri. A.J. Vyas, a Chartered Engineer, the District Forum accepted the stand of the Complainants and allowed the Complaints with the aforestated directions. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred appeals before the State Commission, but were unsuccessful. The State Commission has affirmed the findings recorded by the District Forum to the effect that the defects/deficiencies pointed out by the Complainants did exit and therefore, award of small amounts towards cost of repair etc. was justified. Hence, the present Revision Petitions.
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has vehemently urged that both the fora below have failed to appreciate that the deficiencies pointed out by the Complainants were much after taking over of possession by them and further, the expert, whose report has been relied upon by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial