Bhubaneswar Development Authority, petitioner herein was the opposite party before the District Forum. Complainants/respondents purchased LIG converted into MIG houses at phase-I in Block Nos. 11 and 12 at Chandrasekharpur. They took possession of their respective houses in December 1995. While taking possession, they found minor defects in their houses and on a representation made by them, petitioner undertook to repair -2- the same later on. However, subsequently the respondents/complainants found that there were serious defects like multiple cracks at four sides of the roof, no brick joint, walls were covered by grading plaster, floors of the rooms were of poor quality and cracked. Respondents filed the representation with the petitioner seeking a declaration that the flats given to them were unsafe. It was alleged that the door was not fixed on staircase space resulting in entering of rain water in the flats. That there was no proper discharge of rain water. Petitioner entered appearance and filed the Written Statement. According to the petitioner, respondents/complainants were misusing the houses by keeping water tanks and flower pots over the roofs for which there was no provision. That the petitioner had completed the repair work as per contract by April, 1999 and the petitioner was not obliged to maintain the houses forever. That the petitioner had never declared that these houses were ‘unsafe.’ Aggrieved by this, respondents filed the complainant before the District Forum. -3- District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to complete the repair work failing which complainants would be entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- as compensation from the petitioner. Rs.500/- were awarded as costs. Petitioner as well as the respondents filed separate appeals before the State Commission which have been disposed of by the impugned order directing the petitioner to either provide to the MIG houses in good and habitable condition in lieu of existing houses or to take up necessary repair work of the existing houses of the complainants to make the houses safe and habitable and to bring it in conformity with the standard and quality as per brochure. Rs.10,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs. While admitting the revision petition on 20.07.2007, following directions were issued: ‘Heard. Issue notice to the respondent returnable on 4.2.2008. Operation of the impugned order is stayed in respect of payment of Rs.10,000/- only. It is -4- expected that the petitioner shall carry out the repairs, as has been directed by the State Commission. The petitioner shall get the disputed flats inspected by the Retd. Chief Engineer as may be nominated by the President of the State Commission to ensure that repairs are carried out within 8 weeks from the date of the submission of the report of the Chief Engineer. The petitioner shall pay to the Retd. Chief Engineer so nominated by the State Commission amount of honorarium as may be decided by the State Commission. A copy of this order be sent to the respondent and also to the State Commission. The case up for hearing on 22.09.2011. On that day, counsel for the petitioner stated that the directions issued by this Commission on 20.07.2007 had been carried out and the report was submitted to the State Commission. Counsel for the petitioner sought time to submit the report submitted by the Retired Chief Engineer. Mr. Neeraj Dutt Gaur, Advocate had appeared on behalf of the respondents and noted down the adjourned date of hearing. -5- Counsel for the petitioner has put on record the copy of the report filed by Sh.Harihar Senapati, Chief Engineer (Retd.) reads as under: “…… REPORT The following buildings was visited personally in presence of the owners where the case may be on 29.09.10 for making personal verification of the 8 houses where the defects were earlier pointed out in my report. The BDA was represented by Er. L. P. Mohapatra, Executive Engineer, Division-II and the following owners/family members were present during such visit. 1. Sri K. V. Apparao, LIG-11/45 - The house was locked and owner absent 2. Smt. Tulasi Jena, LIG-11/47 - Present 3. Sri M. R. Jena, LIG-12/19 - Locked and owner absent 4. Sri G. B. Mohanty - Family member present 5. Sri Sukadev Jena, Qr.No.12/23 - Family member present 6. Sri A. K. Pradhan, Qr.No.12/41 - Owner present 7. Smt. Swarnamayee Gupta, - Owner present Qr.No.12/45 8. Sri P. C. Chattar, Qr.No.12/47 - Tenant present. Observation of each house after remedial emasures taken by BDA. Date of Visit : 29.09.2010 Sl. No. | House No. | Observations & remedial measures suggested earlier | Action taken & remedial measures taken by BDA | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | Sh. K. V. Apparao House No.LIG-11/45 | ---- | The house was locked and owner absent. | 2 | Smt. Tulasi Jena LIG-11/47 | Ceiling plaster to be done after chemical treatment of exposed reinforcement and to the terrace | 1. Ceiling plaster has been done after chemical treatment of exposed reinforcement. 2. Roof leaking has been stopped | 3 | Sri M. R. Jena LIG-12/19 | …. | House is locked | 4 | Sri G. B. Mohanty LIG-12/21 | 1. Water proofing chemical to be used before ceiling plaster. 2. Chemical treatment to roof to prevent further damage | The same has been done in before new ceiling plaster and roof plaster. | 5 | Sri Sukadev Jena Qr. No.12/23 | a) Water proof chemical treatment needed to prevent cracks. b) Stitching with RCC emboding in the wall to prevent vertical crack. c) Ceiling to be done after chemical treatment or exposed reinforcements including stair headroom. | a) Epoxy grouting chemical treatment has been done. b) Stitching in walls including plaster has been completed. c) Ceiling has been replastered after chemical treatment. | 6 | Sri A. K. Pradhan Qr. No.12/43 | a) Water proof chemical treatment to roof to prevent cracks in grading plaster. b) Ceiling plaster to be done after chemical treatment of exposed reinforcement. c) Walls are leaking. | a) Done. No cracks in grading plaster. b) Done. No exposed reinforcement in ceiling. c) No leaking of walls | 7 | Smt.SwarnamayeGupta,Qr.No.12/45 | Walls are soaking. | New plaster has been done in walls. | 8 | Sri P. C. Chattar Qr. No.12/47 | a) Chemical treatment to be applied in the roof to prevent roof leaking. b) Same as (a) to prevent cracks in Grading plaster. c) Walls are leaking. d)Stitching with RCC embodying in one place in wall to prevent further vertical crack. | a) Roof leaking has been prevented after chemical treatment. b) Cracks in grading plaster prevented after chemical treatment c) Walls are now not leaking. d) Stitching with RCC emboding has been done and no vertical crack visible. |
SUMMARY The major defects pointed in my report dt.11.09.08 i.e. roof leakage, development of cracks in places in walls, grading plaster, RCC roofs and exposer of reinforcement in RCC roof ceiling have been repaired. All the flats have been completed/occupied more than 20 years and no maintenance work have since been done. In the present circumstances, the repair and rectification works completed in the houses by BDA mentioned above are in my opinion satisfactory. The report is sub mitted for kind information of the Hon. Members of the Commission. This report was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission on perusal of the report submitted by Mr. Harihar Senapati, Chief Engineer (Redt.) passed the following order: “On 4.11.2010, the report of the retired Chief Engineer Mr.Harihar Senapati was received and put up before this Commission pertaining to repair of 8 number of houses after inspection in presence of the representative of the house owners and the house owners themselves escept the houses of Mr.K.V. Apa Rao and Mr. M.R. Jena, whose houses were under lock and key. Other houses were inspected and found to have been repaired perfectly as required. After receipt of the report, we had also called for objection if any from the house owners to the said report on the said date. But today, when the matter is taken up, nobody appears for the house owners nor is any objection to the said report also filed. From this we presume that the houses in question have been repaired to the satisfaction of the house owners. In the circumstances, therefore, we find that there remains nothing to be decided in this C.D. Appeal filed by the B.D.A.” Counsel for the respondents is not present. Respondents are ordered to be proceeded ex parte. As per report submitted by Sh.Harihar Senapati, Chief Engineer (Retd.) and the order passed by the State Commission, necessary repairs have been carried out by the petitioner. The State Commission had given a copy of the report to the respondents to which the respondents did not file any objections. The State Commission presumed that the houses had been repaired to the satisfaction of the respondents. Respondents are not present today as well. In view of the report submitted by Sh.Harihar Senapati, Chief Engineer (Retd.), which is not contested by the respondents, we presume that the petitioner has repaired the houses to the satisfaction of the respondents. Orders passed by the fora below have been complied with. Litigation comes to an end. Since the petitioner has already repaired the houses and removed the defects, direction given by the fora below to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation is ordered to be deleted. Revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. | 
