1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 against the Order dated 30.11.2016 passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.1057 of 2013.

2.      The brief facts as per the Respondent No.1/Complainant are that  Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 invited applications from people for allotment of flats in its society, assuring better facilities and other amenities, as per the brochure. The said project was shown to be duly approved by Respondents No.2 and 3 and Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3. The Respondent No.1 entered into agreement with Petitioner on 27.12.2010 for purchase of two bed rooms flat no.43-A, 4th floor and took the possession, vide letter dated 01.09.2011. The sale deed was got registered by the Petitioner in his favour on 25.01.2012, for which  he paid Rs.27,000/- as maintenance charges thereof to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 came to know within 3-4 months after taking possession that there were deficiencies in the quality of construction and work and the entire building looked dilapidated and its construction looked as if it was many years old. He informed the Petitioner about the deficiency, but to no effect. The discrepancies in the construction were as below:

(a) The building had been raised on RCC pillars on the ground floor. The roof of the building on the ground floor was bent in U-shape. The bend portion had been supported with temporary support of bricks on different points and could collapse at any time.

(b) There were a number of cracks in the joints as well as in the middle portion of the walls and roofs.

(c) Sufficient lifts had not been provided as promised. The area of the lifts had been left open and not covered with any preventive sheet.

(d) Steel chaukhats had not been provided. The wooden chaukhats fixed were of very inferior quality and fixed in a bad manner.

(e) Electricity supply had not been sanctioned by OP no.4. Electricity was being supplied by OP no.1 by charging rates at its own will.

(f) Separate wiring for installation of inverters had not been provided. The occupants had got the wiring at their own costs.

(g) Modular kitchen had not been proved as promised in

brochure. This was pointed out at the time of taking possession, OP no.1 had again promised but till date it had not been provided.

(h)  As promised, pure and clean water and alternative

arrangement for supply of water in case of any defect, had not been provided.

(i)   Fire safety arrangement had not been provided. Only the pipes had been installed but no connection had been given for the fire safety equipment.

(j) OP No.1 had constructed the sixth floor by putting temporary sheets and had sold the same to some persons without approval as the map was approved only upto the 5th floor. The residents brought this illegality to the notice of OP nos.2 and 3, but no fruitful result came out.

(k)   OP no.1 did not do texture paint on the walls despite

promise.

(l) Street lights in the open space and parking place had not been provided and only poles had been installed.

(m) The boundary wall of the society was of very low height and any outsider was could step in and cause harm to the residents.

(n) The covered area of the flat was less than that of mentioned in the brochure.

(o) OP No.1 charged Rs.27,000/- at the time of possession but it failed to give maintenance properly.

(p) The level of the society was low than the sewerage level of outside the society and dirty water came into the premises, which caused infection to the children and other persons.

(q) Power backup and elevators had not been provided.

(r) There was seepage and dampener in the walls and due to this distemper and paint of the walls had come out and started dropping.

(s) Floor tiles on the rear courtyard had not been fixed and at some of the places were lying bare and giving a dirty look.

(t) Proper car parking had not been provided despite

deposit of fee for car parking.

The Respondent No.1, thus, filed a Consumer Complaint seeking relief that Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 be directed to remove all the defects in the construction. Respondents Nos.2 & 3/OP No.2& 3 be directed to remove the illegality done by Petitioner No.1 and Respondents No.4/Opposite Party No.4 be directed to sanction the electricity connection to the Respondent No.1.

3. Upon notice, Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 filed written reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint was misconceived and groundless. The District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute involved in the complaint. The complaint was baseless and a flagrant abuse of process of law, besides being vexatious and was liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Respondent No.1 had visited the site a number of times before purchase of the flat. If the complainant was not interested to live in the flat, he could have taken refund of the entire amount from OP. Petitioner denied the poor quality of construction work and material used therein. The complainant had signed the possession letter on 27.12.2010 and the problems were pointed out by him six months thereafter. When the complainant purchased the flat, the building was 70% complete and all the dimensions and covered area were physically visualized and had never been changed after that. The Respondent No.1 physically stood in the flat before its allotment to him. The foundation stone of the building was laid in April, 2008. As per brochure, it is conceptual and architect or builder reserved the right to amend and modify the same as per the need. At the time of sale deed, the complainant had stated that he was satisfied with the provisions, area, terms and conditions and would not go beyond the terms of conveyance deed. The bending noticed by the complainant might be due to deflection due to rainy season, when the place was wet. Extra strengthening had been provided by constructing brick pillars in middle ground floor. Some of the photographs produced by the Respondent No.1 regarding tiles and other work did not belong to his house and photographs of some unsold flats have been annexed by him. The Respondent No.1 had taken possession after being fully satisfied that the work was completed and as per the sale deed. It was clearly mentioned that the Respondent No.1 was satisfied with the lift, finishing, other finishing work, regarding size, sewerage plant, street lights etc. The wooden chaukhats had been provided as it made less noise, looked more elegant and could be painted with smooth finish. Further, they were charging less than the charges of the electricity department. The project had been passed for 6 floors and Respondent No.1 was aware of this fact and it was evident from the sale deeds of the floors. The Respondent No.1 in the sale deed undertook that any expenses done by the Petitioner any Govt. agency would be shared by him and through this complaint, he wanted to avoid the sharing of payment made by the Petitioner in raising boundary wall, elevating the concrete roads, rearranging the pipes etc. with the level of sewerage laid by the MC. He got the sale deed after 6 months of taking over possession, but during that period he failed to come forward with any of the discrepancies and suddenly filed the present complaint. On merits, it was averred that after being satisfied with the structure and other amenities, complainant had signed in front of Tehsildar on the sale deed. The Petitioner had provided two lifts which are working. It was denied that the Petitioner promised the provision of three lifts. The electricity department had already given connection and the complainant was to approach the Electricity Department for the connection. The inverter wiring was to be provided for fans and tubes, whereas all the power points have been separated from the fans and tube lights. The Petitioner did not promise modular kitchen at all. In para 2(d) of the agreement, it was specifically mentioned that no built in wardrobes, cabinets, furniture/pelmets etc. shall be provided by the developer in the said flat. The Respondent No.1 was member of Comfort Homes Residents Association which had been taking care of cleanliness and water supply. It had already provided 2^nd bore-well and there were two tanks for alternate emergency. Fire-fighting arrangement for the entire building had been provided and the Respondent No.1 had agreed that the pipe for the purpose already existed. The left over works would be completed soon. In the agreement, there was no mention of textured wall paints. Proper street lights had been provided in the society. It was admitted qua the receipt of Rs.27,000/- for providing the amenities. The sewerage lines are laid much below the ground level i.e. 10 feet or more and site discharge level is 4-½’ below ground level. Power generator of 63 KVA is available in the society for elevators. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, Petitioner prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.  Respondent No.2 filed separate written reply and raised preliminary objections that neither Respondent No.1 nor Petitioner were its consumers, as they are not availing any services from it. There was no cause of action against it. On merits, it was averred that the project of Petitioner had never been approved by it and it had not issued any license to Petitioner to develop the colony. It was denied that the building plans were approved by it. Respondent No.2 was not the controlling and supervisory authority of the project of Petitioner. It was denied that the complainant and other occupants brought the illegality of Petitioner to its notice. It has no power to regulate the quality of construction of project of Petitioner. Respondent No.2 was not duty bound to visit the site and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.  Respondent No.3 appeared and filed its separate written reply by raising preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable in the present form, as he was not its consumer. The complaint was alleged to be false and frivolous. The Respondent No.1 had concealed material facts from this Forum. Respondent No.3 had been un-necessarily dragged in the instant complaint. On merits, it was admitted that the project in question was duly approved by it as per rules. Petitioner did not apply for completion certificate with its office. Respondent No.3 will act only, when Petitioner applied for completion certificate. The Respondent No.1 has no privity of contract with Respondent No.3. No cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant to file the complaint and he denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.  Respondent No.4 filed separate written reply taking preliminary objections that the electricity is being supplied to the colony from 11 KV Feeder at Mundi Kharar and electricity connection to the consumer till 03.08.2012 have been provided. Rest of the connections could not be released due to shortage of meters and would be released as soon as the meters are received. The Respondent No.1 was not its consumer. The complaint was false and frivolous. On merits, Respondent No.4 denied the other averments of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.      The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (For short, ‘District Forum’) vide its order dated 24.07.2013, while allowing the Complaint against Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 only and dismissing the Complaint against the Respondents No.2 to 4/Opposite Parties Nos.2 to 4, held as under;

“Thus, we allow the complaint against OP No1 and dismiss the same against OP Nos.2 to 4 OP No.1 is directed to pay to the Complainant a  lump sum compensation amount of Rs.2.25,000/-( Two Lacs Twenty Five Thousand only) towards mental torture and harassment including costs of litigation within a period of one months  from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”      

8.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, while dismissing the Appeal of the Petitioner, vide their order dated 30.11.2016, observed as under;

“9. From perusal of record and hearing the respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we are primarily concerned with the quality of the construction work in this case. After appraisal of above referred evidence on the record, we find no merit in the contention of OP no.1 that complainant signed the sale deed after due satisfaction about amenities before Sub-Registrar. There is no substance in this submission of the appellant. In para no.2 (d) of the agreement, it is recorded that no built-in wardrobes/cabinets, furniture/pelmets etc. shall be provided by the developer in the said flat. The complainant is member of Comfort Homes Residents Association, which has been taking care of cleanliness and water supply. OP no.1 has already provided 2^ndborewell and there are two tanks for alternate emergency. The sale deed dated 25.01.2012 is Ex.C-4 on the record. The possession was delivered on 01.08.2011 to complainant and he started living in the flat. The complainant found various deficiencies in service when he started living in the flat. OP no.1 had not removed these deficiencies in service till now.Ex.C-1 is the brochure, which was issued by OP no.1 assuring certain facilities and amenities and specifications of the flat in question to be provided. The project is shown to have been duly approved by OP nos.2 and 3, vide registration no. PUDA/ ACA(M) /2005/71 dated 23.12.2005. The complainant believed the assurance of OP no.1 as held out in brochure and invested huge amount for purchase of the flat. The deficiencies were pointed out to the notice of OP no.1, vide Ex.C-16 and it promised to remove them, but it was found to be an empty promise only. Photographs Ex.C-6/1 to Ex.C-14/2 pointed out the defects in the construction, which are visible in the photographs, can be held to be so on the basis of its look. Even modular kitchen was assured to be provided in the brochure. Some of the grievances were removed by OP no.1 at the crying of the residents of the colony. Instead of providing steel choukhats, OP no.1 provided wooden choukhats in the flats, which is not less than any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. There was sagging of RCC slab in flat and OP no.1 admitted having put a pillar under it to give strength to the concrete slab. There is no question of giving pillar in the case of sagging of slab of the newly constructed flat in question. No completion certificate has been produced by OP no.1. Even OP no.2 has stated on oath that project is not approved by it and no completion certificate has been provided by OP no.2 to OP no.1. The defects in the construction and quality of work, as observed in the order by the District Forum are affirmed by us in this appeal on the basis of evidence on the record.

10. On the point of quantum of compensation, we find that the District Forum awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant on the head of mental harassment and cost of litigation. We find no ground to interfere with the quantum of compensation in this case keeping in view the deficiencies in service by OP no.1. We are further fortified by the judgments of our own Commission in First Appeal No. 1095 of 2013 decided on 21.10.2014 titled as “Shiva Real Estate Vs. Rehan Mohashir & others” and law laid down by the National Commission in case titled as “Harpal Arya Vs. Housing Board Haryana” 2016 Law Suit (CO)-33. Both these judgments have been examined by us, the facts of each authority are distinguishable and we do not find any similarity of the cited facts of the case with the facts of case in hand. We find no ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case and we affirm the same.

11. As a result of our above discussions, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.”

9.      Hence, the present Revision Petition.

10.    Mr. Karan Dewan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has brought to my notice a common order dated 25.03.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Commission in 11 (eleven) connected Revision Petitions Nos. 366, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 877, 878 and 879 of 2015 filed by the Petitioner—Shiva Real Estates (Comfort Homes), the same Petitioner, who has filed the instant Revision Petition.  In that matter, eleven different Complainants had filed 11 separate Complaints against the present Petitioner /Builder—Shiva Real Estates (Comfort Homes) before the District Forum.  The District Forum allowed the same in favour of 11 different Complainants and against the Petitioner/OP-1-Shiva Real Estates (Comfort Homes) only. Being aggrieved the order of the District Forum, Petitioner /Opposite Party No.1—Shiva Real Estates (Comfort Homes) challenged the Orders of the District Forum before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide their order dismissed the Appeals filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1—Shiva Real Estates (Comfort Homes). Hence, the Petitioner—Shiva Real Estates (Comfort Homes) had filed eleven aforesaid Revision Petitions before this Commission.

11.    The Coordinate Bench of this Commission, comprising  of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. M. Malik and Hon’ble Member Dr.S.M. Kantikar, vide their common order dated 25.03.2015, while dismissing all 11 connected Revision Petitions, observed as under;

“Under these circumstances, we find no flaw in the order passed by the District Forum, which was upheld by the State Commission subsequently. The same runs as follows:-

“12. Thus, we allow the complaint against OP No.1 and dismiss the same against OP Nos.2 to 4 OP No.1 is directed to pay to the Complainant a lump sum compensation amount of Rs.2.25,000/-( Two Lacs Twenty Five Thousand only) towards mental torture and harassment including costs of litigation within a period of one months  from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of costs and hereafter the file be consigned to the record room.”  

It further observed;

It is also interesting to note that the Complaint was filed after the Complaints moved into their respective possession. Four years have elapsed and the Complainants are facing all these defects till now.

Consequently, we dismiss all the 11 Revision Petitions. No order as to costs.”    

12.    The learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that he does not have any further evidence in support the grounds taken in his Revision Petition, particularly in view of the above common order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Coordinated Bench in 11 connected similar Revision Petitions, which are on the same issues, as involved in the instant Revision Petition.

13.    In the light of the findings given in the above cited common order dated 25.03.2015, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Commission, in eleven connection Revision Petitions Nos. Nos.366, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 877, 878 and 879 of 2015 filed by the same Petitioners— Shiva Real Estates (Comfort Homes), facts of which are totally covered by the Revision Petition in hand.

14.    Thus in view of the above discussion, I find that no jurisdictional or legal error in the impugned order has been shown to me  to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity, which requires interference of this Commission. Thus, the present Revision Petition is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Fora below are hereby affirmed.    

15.    No order as to costs.