Complainant has filed this revision petition against the order dated 28.06.2007 passed by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.1309/2007 whereby the State Commission by upholding the order of the District Forum dismissed the appeal.

          Indore Development Authority, the respondent herein, issued a public notice inviting tenders for sale of the flats situated at its scheme 98, Sanwad Nagar Indore under the Self Financing Scheme. 

-2-

Mr.M.M. Patrikar, husband of the complainant applied for the same.  On 23.05.2002 respondent allotted flat No.104 to the husband of the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.6,30,000/-.  Till 27.11.2003 husband of the complainant/petitioner deposited sum of Rs.2,54,822/.  Possession of the flat was to be handed over in May 2004.  On 13.02.2004, complainant’s husband died.  Since the husband of the petitioner/complainant was residing in Government accommodation, complainant was asked to vacate the said house after the death of her husband.  She requested the respondent to hand over possession of the allotted flat as early as possible.  Despite her request complainant was handed over the possession of the flat on 21.06.2005.  After taking possession of the flat, complainant found that the flat was not as per fixed/stipulated standard, and defective and inferior material was used.  It was alleged that the lift was not installed as per agreement; that the cost of the flat had also been enhanced by the respondent.  Feeling aggrieved, petitioner/complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.

-3-

          Respondent on being served entered appearance and filed Written Statement.  It was averred that the delay in handing over the possession was due to Mutation of the flat; that at the time of taking possession, petitioner did not make any complaint that the construction was of inferior quality; that as the flat was allotted to the petitioner at the first floor there was no requirement of lift but in spite of that the lift was installed; that the price of the flat was tentative and could be enhanced subsequently.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the sum of Rs.2,54,882/- from 01.12.2004 till the handing over of the possession.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.  Respondent was also directed to furnish specifications pertaining to the flat of the complainant.

          Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed.

          Limited notice to the point of not granting any compensation in respect of non-functional lift was issued to the respondent.

-4-

          Counsel for the petitioner is not present.

          We agree with the view taken by the District Forum which has been upheld by the State Commission that since the petitioner had been allotted the flat on the first floor, there was no need to provide a lift but in any case, the lift was provided subsequently.  Under the circumstances, no ground for grant of compensation for non-functional lift is made out.  Dismissed on merits as well as non-prosecution.