Delhi

StateCommission

FA/386/2014

PACL INDIA LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANIL TIKOO - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2017

ORDER

THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 21.02.2017

First Appeal No. 386/2014 (Arising out of order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,                   M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi In complaint case No. 133/11)     In the Matter of:            1. M/s PACL India Ltd.          7th Floor, Gopaldas Bhawan,          28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi           2. M/s Peals Infrastructure Projects Ltd. A-WingStateman House, 2nd Floor, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi                                                                                                                                       ……Appellants                                                 Versus                Anil Tikoo Apt. D-302, Gateway Towers Plot No. D8-A, Sector 44, Noida                             …….Respondent

R/

  CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

(JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL, PRESIDENT)

1.             This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) against order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi (in short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint Case No. 133/11 wherein aforesaid complaint case has been allowed.

2.             Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:

                Respondent herein was the complainant before the Ld. District Forum.

3.             A complaint u/s 12 of the Act was filed by him stating therein that a high-end flat bearing No. D-302, Gateway Towers, Plot No. D8-A, Sector-44, was purchased from appellant/OP. The respondent/complainant took the permissive possession of the apartment on 12.02.2009.    After taking the possession of the flat, the respondent/complainant found various deficiencies in it. It was found that there was poor quality of workmanship. The material used was of sub standard quality. The fittings and equipment provided in the so called high-end luxury apartment complex were of poor quality. The respondent/complainant had written various letters to appellant/OP  and the matter was also taken up at Director level functionary and assurances were given but nothing fruitful was done. The respondent/complainant had alleged deficiencies in detail in paragraph 9 of the complaint under various sub headings. It was also alleged that there was reverse slope in bathroom, leading to flooding of balconies which was a perpetual nuisance and inconvenience. Three bedrooms had mismatch of colors of Italian marble tiles having multiple cracks. Even the tiles were of inferior quality. A prayer was made before the Ld. District Forum for removing the deficiencies and for grant of compensation of Rs. 2.5 Lacks along with litigation costs.

4.             Reply was filed by the appellant/OP denying the allegations. It was alleged that the respondent/complainant had already taken the possession after satisfying himself about the construction and as such the respondent/complainant was debarred from raising the issue of alleged deficiencies.

5.             Both the parties had filed evidence in the form of affidavits. Local Commissioner was also appointed by the Ld. District Forum who had visited the spot and had filed detailed report about the alleged deficiencies and supported the case of the respondent/complainant. The objections were also filed to the report of the Local Commissioner which was also considered by the Ld. District Forum. After considering the report of the Local Commissioner, Ld. District Forum held appellant/OP guilty of using inferior quality material in the flat. Ld. District Forum also noted various  imperfection in the quality as had been pointed out in the complaint. The Ld. District Forum vide impugned order directed the appellant/OP as under:

                “In the circumstances, we direct the opposite parties to pay a lump sum compensation for lack of supervision, intentional or otherwise on part of opposite parties to see that such important details in the living room, bedroom, bathroom, balconies, kitchen etc. were not left to  inexperienced hands or subjected to cost-cutting by inferior material as such living in houses in not for few days, but is to be sustained over long time. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances we allow a lump sum compensation of 2.5 lakhs of rupees for their harassment, agony, frustration of the type in which they thought of taking up the complaint more as matter of principle and protest rather than silently suffering at the hands of opposite parties who turn deaf ears and looked away on numerous letters reminders and correspondences on behalf of 70 of RWA members on various shortcomings on and surroundings, water supply car parking, et cetera. In addition we allow compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the complainant for carrying out the works for removing deficiencies on account of defective slope in the bathroom, replacement of tiles, replacing of video phone fan, providing water outlets and other deficiencies noted by Chief architect commissioners in his report and as mentioned in the complaint.

6.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.

7.             Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has submitted that the possession was taken by the respondent/complainant on 12.02.2009 wherein it is recorded that the permissive possession had been handed over in good condition as such no objection could be raised about the alleged deficiencies, if any. It is contended that Ld. District Forum was not justified in passing the impugned order.

8.             On the other hand, Ld.  counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued that immediately after taking the possession, the respondent/complainant had raised objections about the alleged deficiencies i.e. about slopes in the bathrooms, multiple cracks in the walls, the poor quality of marble used in the kitchen and master Toilet and also defective tiles. Despite that the appellant/OP did not bother to hear the complaint of the respondent/complainant nor removed the alleged deficiencies. It is alleged that only after residing in the flat, the aforesaid deficiencies came to the notice of the respondent/complainant.

9.             We have heard, counsel for the parties.

10.            The alleged deficiencies are about slopes in bathroom, balconies, the marble floor in all the rooms and master toilet having multiple cracks; mismatch color of Italian marbles and the rooms plaster on the wall coming off while drilling the holes with drill machines; windows are defective, bath room and door locks are on inferior quality, central air conditioning being faulty etc.

11.            The respondent/complainant has also reproduced the alleged deficiencies on oath in affidavit. The cost for repairs is also stated by the respondent/complainant. The Local Commissioner Mr. Pravesh Jha Kumar, Sh. V.K. Dewan, Architect had visited the spot and filed a detailed report. The same also supports the alleged deficiencies in the flat in question which are pointed out by the respondent/complainant. The appellant/OP has not placed on record any material to rebut the evidence of respondent/complainant. Findings given by the Ld. District Forum are based on evidence on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby it is held that the appellant/OP is guilty of deficiency of poor workmanship, inferior quality of material used and imperfection in the flat as pointed out in the complaint.

12.            No case for interference is made out. The appeal stands dismissed.

                A copy of the order be sent to parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. The record of the Ld. District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

         (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member