Appeal No. FA/14/07. Case: C.G. Housing Board Vs Dharmapal. Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Appeal No. FA/14/07 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate and For Respondents: Manoj Prasad, Advocate |
| Judges | R.S. Sharma, J. (President) and Heena Thakkar, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 15 |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 1 (Chhat.) |
| Judgement Date | May 31, 2014 |
| Court | Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
R.S. Sharma, J. (President)
-
This appeal has been filed by the appellant (O.P.) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (henceforth called "1986 Act") against the order dated 17.12.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No. 135/2012, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant (respondent) under Section 12 of the 1986 Act, has been partly allowed and the appellant (O.P.) has been directed to pay Rs. 62,000 to the respondent (complainant) and also pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 towards Advocate fee and cost of litigation. Briefly stated, the facts of the case before the District Forum are that the complainant/respondent had purchased a house M.I.G. Duplex 123, Phase 4, Kabir Nagar, Raipur from the appellant (O.P.) and possession order was issued by the appellant (O.P.) in favour of the respondent (complainant) on 24.7.2010. On the basis of said possession order, the respondent (complainant) took possession of the said house on 19.8.2010. Prior to taking possession of the said house the respondent (complainant) inspected the said house and found that the construction of the house is below standard quality. He made complaint to the appellant (O.P.) on 19.8.2010. The respondent (complainant) wrote letters to the appellant (O.P.) on 22.1.2011,7.5.2011 and 23.7.2011. The house of the respondent (complainant) was inspected by the appellant (O.P.) on 15.11.2010 in which the complaint regarding the construction, is confirmed, which is from Sl. No. 1 to 16 but in spite of it, the complaint of the respondent (complainant) was not redressed by the appellant (O.P.). Then again, the respondent (complainant) made complaint vide letter dated 3.12.2011 but even then his complaint was not redressed. The respondent (complainant) sent notice to the appellant (O.P.) through Advocate on 13.3.2012 which was received by the appellant (O.P.) on 19.3.2012, but in spite of it, neither the appellant (O.P.) replied the notice nor redressed the complaint of the respondent (complainant). Therefore, the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs. 62,000 which is the cost of the repairing of the house, a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards compensation for mental agony, cost of litigation.
-
The appellant (O.P.) resisted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial