CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)x
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No. 88/2012
SHRI SURESH KUMAR GOEL
S/O LATE SHRI MANOHAR LAL GOEL
R/O FLAT NO. 42, PLOT NO.28
COSMOS SOCIETY, SECTOR 10
DWARKA, NEW DELHI
………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- DARSHAN GROVER
-
M/S GROVER & ASSOCIATES
H-138, KALKAJI
NEW DELHI
- MR. RAJ GROVER
PARTNER
M/S GROVER & ASSOCIATES
H-138, KALKAJI
NEW DELHI
- M/S GROVER &ASSOCIATES
PARTNERSHIP FIRM
H-138, KALKAJI,
NEW DLEHI
THROUGH ITS PARTNERS
- MR. AJAY GARG PARNER
BALAJI MARBLES, AMRITPURAM
MARGOSA ESTATE, NEAR JAGAT FARM
GREATER NOIDA UP
- MR. RAJEEV GARG PARTNER
BALAJI MARBLES,AMRITPURAM
MARGOSA ESTATE, NEAR JAGAT FARM
GREATER NOIDA UP
- BALAJI MARBLES
AMRITPURAM
MARGOSA ESTATE, NEAR JAGAT FARM
GREATER NOIDA UP
THROUGH ITS PARTNERS/PROPRIETERS
………….RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:19/09/2018
O R D E R
Ritu Garodia-Member
The complaint pertains to deficiency in service. The complainant entered into an agreement with OP1, 2 and 3. It is stated that the OP3 is an architecture and builder firm and is represented by its partner OP1 and OP 2. An agreement was entered into between the parties for construction of complainant’s house. A subsequent agreement was executed between the complainant and OP for scaling down the construction work in the front portion. Total payment was made to 1, 2 and 3 on the basis of covered area. It is alleged that the complainant has paid Rs. 7,80,000/- to OP1,2 and 3 whereas some work has not been executed and others have not been executed as per the site plan. It is imputed that specific material as agreed was not used. The complainant has also listed shortcomings in the works executed like non-fixing of wire mash, water pressure test, waterproof treatment etc. It is stated that the as per the agreement, it was OPs responsibility to obtain completion certificate.
On 28/01/2010 the complainant was pressured by OP1, 2 and 3 to release an amount of Rs. 50,000/-for purchase of “Kota/ Agaria white/ Baroda Green Stone”. The complainant was told to issue cheque in the name of OP6. The said cheque was debited from the saving account of the complainant on 1/02/2010. However, it is alleged that no material “Kota/ Agaria white/ Baroda Green Stone” was delivered at the site, though it was promised to be delivered on 3/02/2010. It is further alleged that neither the materials was delivered nor OP1, 2 and 3 started the construction. It is stated that the construction side was abandoned.
It is further imputed that water and electricity charges had to be paid by OP1,2 and 3 which has led to disconnection of electricity. It is further imputed that the covered area was 1109 square feet instead of 1298 square feet which has been charged by OP1,2 and 3. The complainant had to face heavy penalty from Greater Noida Authority. The complainant prays for refund of Rs. 50,000/- with interest. The complainant has filed undated legal notice.
A letter dated 15/02/2010 sent by the complainant to OP 4,5 and 6 runs as under:-
I have issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) in your favour (M/S Balaji Marbles) from my account number (15121020002173) for purchase of “Kota/ Agaria white/ Baroda Green Stone” for construction of my house on plot no. B-41 judges Colony Greater Noida. The said cheque presented through AXIS Bank has been paid value dated 01-02-2010 through my account. However, till date the material has not been supplied on my construction site.
PLEASE HOLD BACK THE SUPPLIES AS DISCUSSED ON TELEPHONE ON SATURDAY 13-02-2010
Please remit back the amount of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand only) by way of DD/Banker cheque/ Pay order drawn at New Delhi, favouring as under.
The complainant has sent another letter 20/2/2010 requesting them to refund the cheque of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant also sent a letter to OP1, 2 and 3 dated 6/03/2010. It is stated that no material has been delivered. In the said letter the complainant states that the owner of OP6 has adjusted the cheque amount of Rs.50,000/- towards material sold to OP1 and 2 on credit and supplied on construction site in NRI Colony Greater Noida.
OP 4 and 5 in their reply has stated that they are neither the partner nor the proprietor of OP6.
OP6 in its reply has stated that the goods/marbles stones were purchased on 23/01/2010,24/01/2010 and 27/01/2010 amounting to Rs. 50,000/- which was paid by the purchaser vide cheque dated 29/01/2010. The complainant and OP1 and OP 2 visited the showroom and selected the material for construction purpose. It is clarified that stone/marble for construction purpose was brought by the purchaser after seeing the material as on where is basis as per the customs and trade usage.
It is further submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation as marble was purchased in January 2010 and complaint was filed in February 2012.
It is emphasised by OP6 that the material was taken from the date of purchase and thereafter, cheque was cleared on presentation. The material was lifted from showroom and presumed to have been taken to the construction site. OP6 denied that the said amount had been adjusted towards old dues of OP1, 2 and 3. It is further clarified that no material has been supplied at the construction site in NRI Colony, Greater Noida. OP6 has filed bills dated 23/01/2010, 24/01/2010, 27/01/2010.
The complainant in its rejoinder to OP6 has denied the bills dated 23/01/2010, 24/01/2010,27/01/2010. Complainant has also denied that the goods were purchased along with OP1 and 2. The complainant has also denied that complaint is barred by limitation. It is denied that the complainant has ever visited the showroom.
The affidavit filed by OP1, 2 and 3 states that the construction work has already been completed and the completion certificated by Greater Noida Authority obtained. It is stated that no expert report by a engineers /construction consultant/relevant authority has been placed on record showing the use of inferior quality material. It is also stated that complaint is barred by limitation. No documentary evidence against OP1, 2 and 3 is filed on record. It is further alleged that the complainant has not filed any ownership documents.
It is clarified that OP2 had to construct the back portion of the ground floor. Afterwards the extra work of raising level of ground floor up to two feet was added for which Rs. 2,00,000/- had to be paid by the complainant which has not been paid till date. OP has denied any shortcomings in the work. It is admitted that Rs. 50,000/- was paid to OP6 for purchase of stone but there was pressure on part of OP2 and 3. It is stated that stone has been supplied and used in construction. OP2 and 3 has also denied any electricity and water charges to be borne by them as per terms of contract.
Perusal of the file shows that the complaint was filed on 27/2/2010. Order dated 30/11/2012 direct the complainant to furnish copies of relevant agreements. The same has not been done.
The complainant has not filed any agreement with OP1, OP2 and OP3 on which the substandard work has been alleged. The Complainant has given detailed list of shortcomings in the construction along with overcharging by giving wrong measurements of covered area. In the absence of agreement between the parties which would show the obligation of OP 1,2 and 3 in construction or any photographs showing imperfection in construction or unsuitability of material used, no deficiency can be fastened on OP 1,2 and 3. The complainant has alleged that he has paid Rs 7,80,000/- but no invoice or payment receipt has been placed on record. Even the averments regarding disconnection of electricity due to non- payment of bills by OP 1, 2 and 3 is not substantiated by any bills or notice by electric service providers or contract between the parties where there was obligation on OP 1,2 & 3 to pay the bills. On the other hand OP 1, 2 and 3 have stated in their reply that the construction work have been completed and even completion certificate has been placed on record. This has not been denied by the complainant. It is also stated that the stones purchased from OP 6 was used in construction. This has also not been specifically denied.
OP 4 and 5 has stated that, they are neither the partner nor the proprietor of OP6. The complainant has not filed any evidence showing that they were either partner or proprietor of OP6. There is no privity of contract with OP 4 and OP5 and no liability can be fastened on them.
The complainant had paid Rs. 50,000/- for purchased of “Kota/ Agaria white/ Baroda Green Stone ” to OP 6. Though the complainant has stated that he was pressured by OP1, 2 and 3 to release this amount to OP6 , no documents or evidence has been placed which shows that OP1, 2 and 3 were involved in the same. It is alleged that no stone was delivered to the site of construction, though it was promised to be delivered on 3/02/2010. The complainant has filed a letter dated 15/02/2010 which shows that he has paid Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of “Kota/ Agaria white/ Baroda Green Stone”. There is no mention of any pressure from OP1, 2 and 3. It is stated in the letter that the material has not been supplied to the construction site and amount of Rs.50,000/- had to be refunded. On the other hand OP6 has clearly stated that the material was taken on the date of purchase and thereafter the cheque was cleared on presentation. OP6 has also placed bills dated 21/03/2010, 20/04/2010 and 27/01/2010. The cheque was cleared on 1/02/2010. It is unreasonable to assume that the cheques were cleared even though the goods purchased one week earlier were not delivered.
The complainant has made further allegation that the material was supplied to construction site of OP1,2,3 in NRI Colony Greater Noida. Once again these averments are not supported by any evidence. On the other hand OP-1, 2 & 3 has specifically stated on affidavit that they have no running construction site in NRI colony, Greater Noida. It appears that the complainant is making vague allegation on the basis of conjecture and surmises. Such allegations are evasive with intention to mislead the forum. Complaint being devoid in merits is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(RITU GARODIA) (H.C SURI) (A.S YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
