Petitioner had booked a bungalow after seeing the model bungalow No.3 prepared by the respondent builder.  He deposited Rs.51,000/- as advance on 26.12.2006.  Balance of Rs.16,99,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was executed and registered on 6.2.2007.  Petitioner is alleged to have paid the sum of Rs.16,99,000/-.  Petitioner thereafter saw the bungalow and found that there were certain defects.  Since the defects were not removed, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. 

On being served the respondent entered appearance and pointed out that two cheques alleged to have been issued by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each were never issued. 

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to return to the petitioner the old cheques of Rs.2,50,000/- each issued by the petitioner and obtain Rs.5 lakh in lieu thereof.  Respondents were directed to remove the defects and provide the electricity, water and water purifier.  Rs.50,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, respondent opposite party filed the appeal.  State Commission has upheld the order of the District Forum except that it has modified the direction given by the District Forum to the respondent opposite party to return the old cheques and if they are not available, give an undertaking that he does not have concerned numbered cheques with him and that he would not use those cheques.  Petitioner was directed to pay the sum of Rs.5 lakh.  Direction given by the District Forum regarding rectification of the defects etc. was upheld.  Operative part of the order of the State Commission reads :

“In view of the above discussion, it is hereby directed that if the two cheques of Rs.2,50,000/- - 2,50,000/- are not available with the opposite party, then he shall give an undertaking that he does not have with him at present the concerned number of the cheques and they would not use the above said numbered cheques in future.  After receiving above said undertaking, the complainants shall pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs) and the opposite party shall within a period of one month deliver possession of the concerned bungalow to the complainant after rectifying defects and making adequate arrangements for electricity and drinking water supply as written on 27.5.2007.  In the circumstances of the case the amount payable for mental harassment and costs of the proceeding appear to be reasonable and is confirmed.  With these directions the appeal is disposed off.”

The only grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the provision of grills in the house.  State Commission has dealt with this aspect in its order and declined the relief regarding provision of grills by observing in para-18 of its order as under :

“Apart from this, on behalf of the complainants it was also mentioned that the grills etc. have not been fixed on doors and windows.  Although there does not appear to be any contract or assurance for the fixing of the grills, though it is essential for safety, yet there is no mention of the grills in any of the documents and the details of the defects of construction prepared in the presence of Shri Ravi Kumar Shukla, there is no mention of the same in it.  In these circumstances we do not find just to give any directions regarding fixing of grills.”

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the respondent was not obliged to provide the grills as there was no mention of the grills in any of the documents and even in the details of defects of construction prepared in the presence of Shri Ravi Kumar Shukla, i.e., the engineer who had accompanied the petitioner/complainant at the time of inspection of the bungalow.  Dismissed.