Contractor's Appeal Dismissed: NCC Sides With Homeowner in Construction Dispute.
14 June 2024
Consumer Complaints >> Civil & Consumer Law | Consumer Law >> Civil & Consumer Law | Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights
The National Consumer Commission (NCC) recently dismissed a revision petition filed against an order by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission). The case involved a homeowner (respondent) who had entered into a construction agreement with a contractor (petitioner) but ended up dissatisfied with the quality of work.
Background:
The homeowner had contracted the builder to construct a house. However, upon completion, the homeowner alleged that the construction was substandard and suffered from leakages and other defects. The homeowner claimed to have spent a significant sum on repairs and subsequently filed a consumer complaint against the builder seeking compensation for the repairs and mental agony. The District Consumer Forum, the first level adjudicator, ruled in favor of the homeowner. The forum directed the builder to compensate the homeowner for the cost of repairs and mental suffering. The builder appealed this decision to the State Commission, which upheld the District Forum's order.
Revision Petition and Arguments:
Dissatisfied with the State Commission's verdict, the builder filed a revision petition with the National Consumer Commission. The core argument of the revision petition centered on the report by an advocate commissioner appointed by the lower court. The builder contended that the report contained inaccuracies and should not have been relied upon. The homeowner, on the other hand, argued for upholding the concurrent findings of both the District Forum and the State Commission.
Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction:
The National Consumer Commission has limited revisional powers under the Consumer Protection Act. It can only intervene in cases where the State Commission has demonstrably acted outside its jurisdiction, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, or made a legally flawed decision with significant irregularities.
Conclusion:
After careful consideration, the NCC dismissed the revision petition. The Commission found that the State Commission had acted within its jurisdiction and had not committed any illegality or material irregularity. The NCC also acknowledged the principle that it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by both lower courts unless such findings are demonstrably wrong.