DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.560/2012

Mrs. Alka Agarwal

R/o A-407, Manyak CGHS Ltd.

Plot-21, Sector-6, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

Dhreej Gautam

99, New Building,

Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi

M/s Black Rose Interiors

(through, Dhreej Gautam- Prop.)

RZ-35, Ranaji Enclave, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043                                                  ……Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          : 22.10.12                                                        Date of Order        : 28.09.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member           

O R D E R

Case of the Complainant, in nutshell, is that she entered into a contract in the first week of March 2012 with the OP who claimed himself to be a RADAC/HDM registered contractor to complete the interior work of flat No.A-407, Mayank Apartments, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 and the total cost was calculated to be Rs.12,07,049/- inclusive of material as per samples and quality; that the OP agreed to compete the entire work within 3 months i.e. till May, 2012 as per the satisfaction of the Complainant. It is stated  that inspite of making 99% payment of total work OP miserably failed to hand over the flat to the Complainant after completion of the entire work till 15.07.12  on one pretext or the other which forced the Complainant and her family to live in a rented flat till 15.07.12. Alleged incomplete work due to the negligence as well as poor workmanship of the OP and his workers has been specified in para No.5 of the complaint and it is stated that the OP breached the terms of the work contract due to which the Complainant had to suffer financial loss to the tune of Rs.2 lacs and Rs.50,000/- towards rent of the rental accommodation.  Legal notice dated 12.09.12 was sent to the OP which was received by him on 26.09.12 but to no effect. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP the present complaint has been filed for issuing directions to the OP to pay Rs.2 lacs on account of cost of left out work and Rs.50,000/- as compensation  for undue harassment and mental agony as well as unwanted financial burden.

OP appeared on 14.12.12 and undertook to complete the contractual work of the Complainant. It appears that OP thereafter did not appear and was proceeded exparte by our predecessors.

Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence.

None has been appearing on behalf of the Complainant since 30.10.13 though the matter has been adjourned number of times. We proceed to decide the present complaint.

The Complainant has not filed any report muchless architecture’s report to show that the work to be carried out by the OP in pursuance of any such agreement has not been completed by the OP before filing of  the complaint and even during the pendency of the complaint.  The Complainant has also not filed any document which may even show that she had to reside in a rented accommodation due to non-completion of the entire work in the flat in question.  Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.

     Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 28.09.2016