Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 29/03/2003 passed in consumer complaint No.306/1999, Mrs. Harakubai Mangilal Rathi V/s. M/s.Samrat Construction & Ors., passed by Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (‘the Forum’ in short).
2. It is the grievances vis-à-vis deficiency in service against the builder for giving less area of flat. Considering the Correction/ Supplementary Deed dated 16/03/1999 and making payment consequent to it, as agreed; the consumer complaint came to be dismissed holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of builder/developer, as alleged. Feeling aggrieved thereby, org. complainant has preferred this appeal.
3. Intimation of today’s date of hearing is given to both the parties by publishing notice on Notice Board as well as giving intimation through the website, but the parties remained absent. Under the circumstances, we prefer to consider the appeal on the basis of material placed before us.
4. Mere perusal of the impugned order shows that the alleged claim of deficit area of 70 sq.ft. is made on the basis of original agreement which corrected by Correction/Supplementary Deed dated 16/03/1999 and as agreed between the parties, compensation of `2,100/- was also paid and received by the complainant from the builder for alleged shortfall in area. Under the circumstances, the very grievance about the less area does not survive. The Forum held accordingly and dismissed the consumer complaint. We find no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the Forum. We find no substance in the appeal filed by the org. complainant.
5. For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 7th July 2011.
