Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal has been lying unattended since it was filed in 2004. After seeking stay, appellant has not bothered to prosecute this appeal. As per policy of this Commission unattended appeals were placed for disposal before this bench and this appeal was placed before us on 04/08/2011 after it was notified on Internet Board and also on the Notice Board of this Commission. But, on 04/08/2011 both parties were absent. Hence, we adjourned the matter to 29/09/2011 i.e. today and we directed the office to issue notices to both the parties by ordinary post. Accordingly on 09/09/2011 notices were sent by office of this Commission and despite notice both the parties are absent today. We therefore perused the impugned order to dispose of the appeal on merits.
We have gone through the impugned judgement, affidavits on record and pleadings of the parties. We are finding that complaint of the respondent was decided by the Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune. The complaint was allowed by judgement delivered on 29/06/2004 in consumer complaint No.163/2003. Complaint was allowed since it was not contested despite service of notice by the opponent-appellant herein. On perusal of the complaint, affidavit and photographs and on perusal of clauses of agreement, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found that there was no plastering, flat was having seepage of water, staircase was in broken condition. Proper tiles were not put up. Basin was installed in half hazard manner. Completion certificate has not been procured. There was no railing to the staircase and therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the appellant to remove deficiencies as listed in page-2&3 of the impugned judgement within three weeks. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum also directed alternatively to pay `50,000/- for the defects if they are not removed. But District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum further directed to pay `1,50,000/- to the complainant for all the deficiencies and defects found in the building. However, we are finding that the complainant had not purchased the building, but he had purchased one flat i.e. flat No.6 in the building constructed by the appellant herein. So, compensation of `1,50,000/- directed to be paid to the complainant by the appellant is appearing to be erroneous and bad in law. One flat purchaser cannot ask for compensation only on the ground that building has not been plastered from outside. There is no joint complaint of all the flat purchasers and therefore, granting of compensation of `1,50,000/- in terms of award to the complainant is appearing to be erroneous and bad in law and to this extent we are inclined to allow this appeal though the respondent is absent. In the circumstances, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. While maintaining the order passed by the Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune, we delete compensation of `1,50,000/- awarded to the complainant in respect of non-plastering of whole of the building by the appellant. Rest of the order stands confirmed.
3. Amount if any deposited by the appellant while obtaining stay be paid to the respondent/complainant towards part satisfaction of the award.
4. No order as to costs.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 29th September 2011.
