This revision petition seeks to challenge the order dated 6^th June 2009 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (hereafter, ‘the State Commission’). By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant against the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (hereafter, ‘the Board’).

 

2.     The case of the petitioner (the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal – hereafter, ‘the District Forum’) was that she was allotted a house by the Board under the latter’s High Income Group (HIG) housing scheme in 2001, by way of hire purchase arrangement. Over a period, she deposited a sum of Rs. 3,57,767/- with the Board against the estimated price of Rs. 7,33,540/- but could not take over possession of the house because there were several defects in its construction. Allegedly, she wrote repeatedly to the Board to rectify the defects so that she could take over possession and also make the balance payment. However, the Board could hand over possession of an incomplete house only on 6^th February 2006. As a result, she had to spend a sum of Rs. 3,10,644/- to make the house habitable. Aggrieved by the deficiencies in service rendered by the Board, she finally filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum praying for reimbursement of the said amount and compensation on various counts.

 

3.     In its written version before the District Forum, the Board denied the allegations of deficiency and pleaded that it was because of the complainant’s own defaults in payment that possession of the house could be given after a long delay of six years in February 2006. She did not pay the due instalments in time; so much so that she was in arrears of Rs. 86,823/- even in 2007. After considering the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant could not establish any deficiency in service against the Board. The State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the complainant’s appeal. Hence, this revision petition.

 

4.     We have heard Mr. Ashish Wad, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant. However none was present on behalf of the Board though a notice was issued as long as ago on 19.04.2010.

 

5.     Mr. Wad has reiterated the stand of the petitioner/complainant before the District Forum and State Commission that she was unable to take possession of the house on account of defects and deficiencies in its construction and she repeatedly brought this to the notice of the officials of the Board who did not respond to her requests for rectification / completion of the construction. In this context he has invited attention to a letter dated 02.09.2005 written by then Deputy Commissioner of the Board to the Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer concerned referring to the complaints of the petitioner/complainant regarding construction of the house for the last one year and directing expeditious execution of some incomplete works and rectification of defects in the construction. From this, Mr. Wad seeks to persuade us that the petitioner/complainant was continuously following up with the Board to expedite construction of the house but the Board officials did not respond. When specifically asked to clarify the if petitioner wrote to the Board at any time between February 2001 and August 2004 complaining about either slow or defective construction. Mr. Wad has been unable to show us such correspondence.

 

6.     The facts which emerge are that the complainant paid to the Board less than half the estimated cost of the house and, even after belated possession in February 2006, was in arrears of Rs. 86,823/-. Secondly, she took no effective steps to write to the Board either about delayed delivery of possession or defective construction during the long period of 3½ years between February 2001 and August 2004. From the letter dated 02.09.2005 of the Deputy Commissioner of the Board, all that can be inferred is that the petitioner/complainant started complaining about construction of the house about a year prior to that and as of September 2005 only the entry door to the house was incomplete and there were some other (unspecified) defects in the construction. Even if it is accepted at face value that she had to spend Rs. 3,10,644/- on completing the construction of the house and removing defects, it was a unilateral action of hers without demonstrating to the Board what the defects were which needed to be rectified at that cost. Therefore, we agree with the Fora below that in view of her own conduct, the petitioner/complainant cannot be allowed to allege deficiency only on the part of the Board or claim any refund/compensation therefor.