This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Agra Development Authority against the order dated 28.12.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., (in short ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No.1384 of 2015.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the respondent complainant was allotted house by the petitioner and the petitioner handed over the possession to the respondent on 30.7.2006.  It is the case of the respondent/ complainant that when she received the possession, there were lot of defects in the house such as the doors and windows were not properly fitted the fittings in the bathroom were all broken etc. The complainant requested the petitioner to rectify the defects, however, the same was not done.  The complainant then filed a consumer complainant before the District Consumer District Forum II Agra, (in short ‘the District Forum’) being CC No.04 of 2008. The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the petitioner to repair all the defects within a period of three months.  The petitioner preferred appeal before the State Commission being FA No.1384 of 2015, but the same was also dismissed by the State Commission vide its order dated 28.12.2013.

3.      Hence the present revision petition.

4.      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.  The learned counsel stated that the complainant accepted the possession without any protest.  The complaint has been filed after one and half years of taking the possession and this clearly means that the complainant was satisfied with the property after taking the possession and there were no defects in the house for the initial one and half years. The defects mentioned by the complainant are normal wear and tear and for that, the complainant herself is responsible because she did not maintain the house properly and used the same negligently.  The petitioner is a public authority and cannot use the public money for repair of a house which was already sold and the defects have been caused by the purchaser herself.  Both the fora below have not given any consideration to this aspect.

5.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. First of all, it is seen that the consumer complaint can be filed within a period of two years from the date of cause of action.  Clearly in the present case, the complaint has been filed within a period of two years from the date of taking over the possession of the house.  Hence, the complaint was not time barred and was definitely maintainable before the consumer forum.  It does not matter whether the complaint has been filed after one month or after one and a half years from the date of cause of action.  I also do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defects may be due to normal wear and tear and due to misuse by the complainant because nobody would unnecessarily complain about the defective doors and windows or fittings in the bathroom.  Obviously if there are certain defects in the house, the allottee would try to get the defects repaired by the concerned builder and if the same is not removed, then, only, the allottee would go for litigation.  If the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is considered that the defects developed due to negligent use of the property, then also, it means that the house was not properly constructed and the construction was of a bad quality because generally such defects are not supposed to develop within one and a half years.  Therefore, from this aspect also, the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner is proved.

6.      Both fora below have given concurrent finding of facts that the defects were there and they prove the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner authority.  The scope under the revision petition against the concurrent findings given by the fora below is quite limited as facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission in such cases as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, as under:-

“23.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.  In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”   

7.      Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition No.1023 of 2018 and the same is dismissed in limine.