Delay condoned. Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, through its Commissioner and the Executive Engineer, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, is to the order dated 01.08.2016, rendered by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Raipur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. FA/13/191. By the order impugned, while affirming the finding returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Raipur (for short “the District Forum”) in its order dated 02.03.2013, in Complaint Case No. 924/2011, regarding defects in the house constructed by the Petitioners, the State Commission has deleted/modified certain directions by the District Forum relating to compensation etc. The State Commission has finally directed the Petitioners to pay to the Respondent/Complainant a sum of ₹20,000/- charged as security deposit for ten months; ₹1,00,000/- as reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the Complainant for repairs/removal of the defects in the house; ₹15,000/- as compensation towards harassment and mental agony; and ₹3,000/- as litigation expenses. The State Commission has, however, deleted the directions issued by the District Forum with regard to penal interest, amounting to ₹1,33,443/-, and reduced the compensation for mental agony from ₹50,000/- to the afore-stated amount of ₹15,000/- only. Having heard Mrs. Rekha Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, we are of the view that there is no merit in the present Revision Petition. It is evident that for arriving at the conclusion that the house had defects, as recorded in para-28 of the order, the State Commission has relied upon the inspection report submitted by two experts, namely, Pramod Mathur (Chartered Architect & Valuer) and Manish Dev Jain (BE). No evidence/material, adduced by the Petitioners in rebuttal to the said experts report, is available on record. In light of the said factual scenario, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in our Revisional Jurisdiction. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. |
