CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

  Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

          (Behind Qutub Hotel)

   New Delhi – 110016

    Case No.61/21

Sudesh Chawla

W/o Late Mr. BR Chawla

10/9, F.F. Kalkaji

New Delhi -110019…..COMPLAINANT

Vs.

Swarn Lata

W/o Mr. Darshan Lal

48C, Pocket A-12,

Kalkaji Extn.    

New Delhi-110019

And

Darshan Lal

48C, Pocket A-12,

Kalkaji Extn.    

New Delhi-110019.                              …..RESPONDENTS

                                                                                                Date of Institution-12.03.2021

Date of Order-17.11.2023

         O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

1.  The complaint pertains to deficiency of service of the part of OP.

2. Facts outlined in the complaint by the complainant: The complainant, a widow, was a co-owner of house situated at 48-C, pocket A-12, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi-110019 along with Mr. Rajender Kumar Manak, the other resident. They entered into an Collaboration Agreement with OP for reconstruction of their residence. The complainant executed a general power of attorney in favor of OP for reconstruction of said property. 

3. The complainant alleges that OP had fallen short of standards mentioned in the collaboration agreement while reconstructing. It is further alleged that OP had neither paid for the repair undertaken by the complainant to make the house habitable or provide compensation for such shortcomings as provided under the agreement.

4. The complainant submits that the construction had to be completed within a period of 15 months from the date of vacating the premises by the complainant as per Clause 18 of the agreement.  The complainant vacated the premises on 15.04.2016 and the possession was to be handed over by 15.07.2017.  The aforesaid clause also provides for rent and penalty in case of any delay.

5. The complainant alleges that the old structure was merely demolished by December, 2016.  OP started the construction of the new structure in February, 2017. The construction of the premises was completed in April, 2018.  Thereafter, OP started the finishing and furnishing of the premises in accordance with the Collaboration Agreement. 

6. It is alleged that the finishing work in the other floor were completed at a faster pace.  But, the same work in complainant’s floor was progressing at a slow pace. It is alleged that OP completely stopped the work on complainant’s floor in January, 2019.

7. It is imputed by the complainant that OP sold their allotted 2^nd floor and handed over the possession to the buyer on 17.08.2019.  Mr. Manak’s two floor, the co-owner of the original premises, were completed and handed over in July 2019.  The complainant’s first floor remained incomplete and was not handed over to her.

8. The complainant re-entered the premises on 29.08.2019 as no work is being done in her premises.  The complainant has filed a video of her floor when she entered the premises.  It is alleged that fittings: fan, air conditioner, modular kitchen were not affixed, tiles were missing and electrical work was incomplete.   It is further alleged that OP was obliged to pay Rs.50,000/- per month as rent and Rs.50,000/- per month as, penalty till completion of the project.

9. The complainant being a senior citizen and a widow had to supervise and complete the unfinished work done by OP. The complainant prays for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- towards rent and penalty, Rs.5,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment, and Rs.25,98,736/- towards the cost incurred for carrying our collaboration agreement.

10. Notice was issued to OP but none appeared. OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.08.2022.

11. The complainant has filed the evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:

1. A copy of Collaboration Agreement is exhibited as Exhibit CW-1/ 1.
2. A copy of GP,A is exhibited as Exhibit CW-1/ 2.
3. A copy of shortcomings and consequential loss is exhibited as Exhibit CW-1/ 3.
4. A copy of invoices of material is exhibited as Exhibit CW-1/ 4.
5. A copy of electronic evidence in the form of audio conversation is exhibited as Exhibit CW-1/ 5.
6. A copy of video of subject property is exhibited as Exhibit CW-1/ 6.
7. A copy of certificate certifying the authenticity of electronic evidences is exhibited as Exhibit CW-1/ 7.
8. A copy of Notice is exhibited as Exhibit CW-1/ 8.

12. We have considered the material and documents on record.  The complainant has filed an Agreement dated 01.03.2016. The complainant has provided a comprehensive list of services that were expected to be carried out by OP, highlighting several deficiencies in their services. These shortcomings include the use of dissimilar steel, different flooring materials, distinct sanitary ware, an alternate water tank, an alternative fan, and incomplete work in the final polishing and woodwork stages.

13. The complainant has filed multiple repair bills. Some of these bills contain GST number and some bills are merely on letter head and does not contain any GST Number. A compilation of bill which contain invoice no. and GST No. are as follows:

14. The commission has also viewed the video recording made by complainant when she entered her residential unit.  It can be clearly seen that fans and ACs are not installed, the kitchen is incomplete without any cupboards and fitting, some seepage can also be seen in one of the room and wardrobes are not installed. The Agreement provides for installation of modular kitchen with built in hob and storage above and below the counter. It also provides for designer wardrobes in the room, installation of Havells fan and air conditioners with capacity of 1.5- 2 tonnes. The quality of construction appears to be below par and seepage had already started in the reconstructed floor of the complainant.

15. The complainant has filed sufficient evidence to prove that her floor/unit was incomplete when she entered the premises.  She had to carry out multiple repair and have attached the repair bill.  OP has not appeared to dispute the contention made by the complainant.

16. Hence, we find OP deficient in providing services relating to reconstruction of complainant’s residence and direct OPs to pay-

1. Rs.4,89,230.77/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
2. Pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical inconveniences.
3. Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

17. File be consigned to record room. Order to be uploaded on website.