REVISION PETITION NO.3728 OF 2009 (Against order dtd. 05.6.2009 in Appeal no.156/2007 Of the State Commission, M.P.) | M. P. HOUSING BAORD | ........ Petitioner (s) | Vs. | | WING CDR NIRMAL KUMAR RAI & ANR. | ........ Respondent (s) | REVISION PETITION NO.3762 OF 2009 (Against order dtd. 05.6.2009 in Appeal no.112/2008 Of the State Commission, M.P.) | M. P. HOUSING BAORD | ........ Petitioner (s) | Vs. | | BHAWNA VARSHNEY | ........ Respondent (s) | REVISION PETITION NO.3763 OF 2009 (Against order dtd. 05.6.2009 in Appeal no.824/2008 Of the State Commission, M.P.) | M. P. HOUSING BAORD | ........ Petitioner (s) | Vs. | | AJAY AGARWAL & ANR. | ........ Respondent (s) | REVISION PETITION NO.3764 OF 2009 (Against order dtd. 05.6.2009 in Appeal no.826/2008 Of the State Commission, M.P.) | M. P. HOUSING BAORD | ........ Petitioner (s) | Vs. | | PRAMOD DUBEY | ........ Respondent (s) |
REVISION PETITION NO.3765 OF 2009 (Against order dtd. 05.6.2009 in Appeal no.2381/2008 Of the State Commission, M.P.) | M. P. HOUSING BAORD | ........ Petitioner (s) | Vs. | | KAMALJIT BHALLA & ANR. | ........ Respondent (s) | REVISION PETITION NO.3766 OF 2009 (Against order dtd. 05.6.2009 in Appeal no.2342/2008 Of the State Commission, M.P.) | M. P. HOUSING BAORD | ........ Petitioner (s) | Vs. | | RAJINDER SINGH RAGHUVANSHI | ........ Respondent (s) | REVISION PETITION NO.3767 OF 2009 (Against order dtd. 05.6.2009 in Appeal no.2343/2008 Of the State Commission, M.P.) | M. P. HOUSING BAORD | ........ Petitioner (s) | Vs. | | R. S. VIJAYVARGIYA & ANR. | ........ Respondent (s) | REVISION PETITION NO.3768 OF 2009 (Against order dtd. 05.6.2009 in Appeal no.2463/2008 Of the State Commission, M.P.) | M. P. HOUSING BAORD | ........ Petitioner (s) | Vs. | | S. PRASSANNA & ANR. | ........ Respondent (s) | REVISION PETITION NO.3769 OF 2009 (Against order dtd. 05.6.2009 in Appeal no.2489/2007 Of the State Commission, M.P.) | M. P. HOUSING BAORD | ........ Petitioner (s) | Vs. | | SQUADRON LEADER ANAND VIKRAM PETHIA | ........ Respondent (s) | -3- BEFORE: | | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT | HONBLE MR. B. K. TAIMNI, MEMBER | | For the Petitioner : Brig. M. L. Khattar & Mr. S. Das, Advocates |
| 4th November , 2009 | | ORDER |
These Revision Petition are being disposed of by a common order as the question of fact and law involved are the same. M.P. Housing Board, petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum. Facts leading to the filing of present revision petitions are as under: Respondents/complainants were allotted flats by the petitioner as per their brochure. Petitioner had promised certain amenities/facilities to the complainants such as to provide round the clock security at entrance gate, single entrance-exit, intercom facility from guard room to the flats, swimming pool, jogging track 1 km per round, children play area, crèche, roller scatting ring, well equipped gymnasium, space for indoor games such as table tennis, carom, -4- card room, pool, chess etc., beautifully land scaped garden and party lawn, separate temporary parking and paid basement parking for residents. Petitioner failed to prove the above said facilities to the respondents which led to filing of the complaint. District Forum vide its order dated 04.12.2007 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to provide all the facilities mentioned in the brochure to the complainants along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each of the complainants and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation. Petitioner as well as respondents preferred separate appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission by the common impugned order dismissed both sets of appeals. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to provide the facilities which had been promises to the respondents as per the brochure initially. But, later on the petitioner provided the facilities except jogging track. Counsel for the petitioner admits that in the brochure, a promise was held out that the petitioner would provide a 1,000 meter jogging track, but according to him it was impossible to do in view of area of the plot. Respondents were led to believe that the petitioner would provide the facility. In the Grounds of Revision, petitioner has stated that promise of jogging track of 1 km was a mistake. From the reading of the Grounds of Revision, it is evident that the petitioner had agreed to provide 1 km jogging track which it failed to do so. Respondents were led to buy the flats on the promise held out by the petitioner in the brochure with regard to common facilities. The petitioner cannot be allowed to riggle out its commitment by saying that by mistake he had committed to provide the jogging track of 1 km. We agree with the view taken by the fora below that the petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | |
