Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Report of the Pleader Commission is filed.
2. This complaint case is filed U/S-17 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act) read with Section-12 of the Act.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation,New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as “CGEWHO” an autonomous body under the Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, launched a housing project in BeguniaBarehi Mouza,near C.V.Raman Engineering College on the outskirts of Bhubaneswar for providing the houses to the Central Govt. employees whether in service or retired. The complainant being a Central Govt. employee applied for availing house under the scheme. It is alleged that at the time of issuing the project, the Op has promised to provide a full fledge house Type-‘C’ flat with 3 BHK and the cost of the flat was Rs.15,22,000.00. It is alleged that allotment was made in favour of the complainant with direction to pay 30 % of the cost of the flat as earnest money deposit i.e. Rs.4,56,000/- by 25.05.2007 towards 1st installment. It was also directed to pay balance 70 % of Rs.10,65,400.00 on 15.04.2008. It was informed that the project will commence on May,2008 as BDA has approved the plan on 31.05.2008. On 11.05.2010 the OP informed the complainant that the project would be completed by February,2011. On 17.05.2010 the OP asked the complainant for enhancement of the cost of the land from Rs. 15,22,000.00 to Rs.21,96,000.00. On 24.01.2011 the Op informed the complainant, the anticipated escalation on account of increase in material cost and labour for which there is delay in delivery of the possession of the land.
4. On 19.07.2013 the OP offered possession of the flat with a direction to accept the cost of the flat. On 13,09.2013, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.7,69,252.00 with all other documents as required by the OP. On 24,.09.2013 the OP No.1 asked the complainant to take possession and accordingly on 25.11.2013 the possession was delivered. The complainant alleged that after taking possession he found several defects for which he filed a case before the learned District Forum who did not accept same as it was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District Forum. The complainant again filed this case before this Commission for getting relief. Hence, the complaint.
5. The OPs filed written version stating that the claims made by the complainant are not sustainable in law. The allegation made in the complaint are false and fabricated. The scheme being floated by the Central Govt. Organization after due consultation with the repudiated engineers and marketing engineers the houses were constructed. They admitted that they have issued the brochure for sale of Type “C’ flat. They have already paid the cost of the land and the house there under and accordingly it has been allotted with the agreement executed between the parties. At the time of delivery of possession there was no defect pointed by the complainant. The complainant has made false allegation while he has filed the complaint in District Forum which was returned by the District Forum due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction for which he filed a complaint case here. But it is submitted by the OP that there is no iota of evidence to prove the case. The Ops submitted to dismiss the case.
.6. After going through the pleadings of both the parties, issue is to find out whether complainant proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
ISSUE NO.1
7. The complainant, in order to prove his case has adduced certain documents. The OP also in order to prove their case has also filed certain documents. It is settled in law that if both the parties adduced evidence in support of their claim onus probably recedes. The complainant has depended on the pleader commissioner’s report. Learned counsel for the Op has objected the report of the pleader commissioner.
8. The fact of the case is that the complainant being a Central Govt. employee has booked a 3 BHK flat on payment of due cost and agreement was executed. The only dispute lies whether the OP has handed over house as proved by OP in their brochure. Therefore, the crucial matter in the pleader commissioner’s report. The pleader commissioner’s report filed before us is gone through. The pleader commissioner has not only submitted the report but also filed some photographs.
He has made observation at 15 points and the conclusion is as follows:-
“After conclusion of my inspection, I am of the opinion that out of 15 nos. of allegations made by the complainant, the Ops have fully removed the defects mentioned in point No.8,11 & 14 only and partially on Point No.13 (Total 4 nos. of points). The defects in remaining 11 nos. of points are still exists in the flat. “
9. The observations shows that OP has removed the defect in 8,11 & 14 but the defects in the remaining points still exists. In order to prove deficiency and conclusion he has attached all the photographs. On going through same we are of the view that the Op had not made constructed houses as promised in the brochure. The quality of work is not upto the standard.
10. In view of observation of the pleader commissioner and the evidence of complainant, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP proved by the complainant.
11. The OP has filed the affidavit but they have not proved to have any specific evidence with regard to completion of the house as per project issued by them.
12. In view of the fact that the complainant has proved the case and the OP failed to prove this case. The complainant has asked for repairing of the house at the cost of the OP and to pay compensation as from 2013 always the complainant has been allowed to stay in the poor condition of the house. Therefore, we hereby allowed the complaint with cost against the OP. The OP is directed to repair the complete house as per their agreement executed between the parties within a period of three months, failing which the cost of repairing will be undertaken by the complainant at the cost of the Op and the Op will reimburse same within two months. (2) OP is directed to pay Rs.2.00 lakhs towards compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and harassment as undertaken by them by such period.(3) OP will pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for litigation cost. All the payments will be made within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which it will carry 12 % interest from the date of filing of the complaint till payment made.
The complaint case is disposed of accordingly.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
