Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/764/2022

ANITA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NAVEEN SHEOKAND

03 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/764/2022
Date of Institution	:	30/08/2022
Date of Decision	:	03/09/2024

 

Anita Rani w/o Sajjan Malik r/o Floor No.D-3/15-FF, DLF Valley, Sector-3, Pinjore-Kalka Urban Complex, Panchkula.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.       M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., DLF Valley, Pinjore, Sector-3, Pinjore-Kalka Urban Complex, Panchkula-134107 through its authorised signatory/Officer.

2.       Kehar Singh r/o House No.46, Sector 6, Karnal, Haryana-132001.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for complainant (thr.VC)
	:	Sh.Ashish Pandey, Advocate for Sh.Kunal Dawar, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Smt.Anita Rani, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that OP-1/builder had developed a residential group housing project under the name and style of “The Valley” situated in Sector 3, Kalka Pinjore Urban Complex. The complainant had purchased a unit bearing No.D-3/ 15-FF, First Floor measuring 2591 sq.ft. (hereinafter referred to as “subject unit”) in the same from OP-1, vide allotment letter dated 13.7.2019 (Annexure C-1) and has been residing therein whereas OP-2 is the owner of unit on the second floor, but, has not been residing in the same and is lying vacant since long.  During rainy season, water accumulated on the second floor and due to water logging, there was heavy seepage from the ceiling of the subject unit of the complainant and the same can also been seen from the photographs (Annexure C-2). The complainant had purchased a brand new property for residential purposes, which was handed over to her by OP-1/builder after paint work, but, due to seepage in the subject unit one piece of damaged plaster had fallen on her pet dog, as a result of which he was injured. OP-1 was approached by the complainant several times with her concern, including by sending letter dated 1.8.2022 (Annexure C-3), but, with no success as OP-1 simply replied that since it had sold the unit to OP-2, OP-1 has nothing to do with the same.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP-1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, non joinder of necessary parties, limitation and concealment of facts. However, it is admitted that the subject unit had been sold to the complainant to whom the possession had also been delivered in the year 2019 and she is an independent floor buyer as per the agreement dated 3.5.2019 (Annexure OP-2). It is also alleged that the second floor unit had been purchased by OP-2 and after its sale answering OP has nothing to do with the same.  It is also alleged that, in fact, complainant is residing in the subject unit on the first floor, and there is no seepage issue on any other floor indicating that the building is structurally sound.  However, complainant is responsible for the seepage to her unit as she herself had installed illegal temporary fixture in the form of a shed on her balcony without seeking necessary approval from the competent authority, which fact can be seen from the photographs (Annexure OP-4) and the same clearly shows that water logging above the ceiling shed is leading to seepage of water from the sides of the fixture, which resulted in causing dampness on the ceiling of balcony.  Moreover, complainant had taken possession of the subject unit on 13.7.2019 and there was no problem in the said unit and the problem started only when the complainant herself installed illegal structure in the form of a shed.  Moreover, Valley Residents Welfare Society is responsible to provide various services to the residents of the township and the complainant was required to approach the said society instead of filing the present consumer complaint.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Pursuant to the notice, initially OP-2 put in appearance through counsel.  However, subsequently, neither anybody appeared on behalf of OP-2 nor reply and evidence were filed on his behalf. Hence, OP-2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.3.2023.
4. The complainant chose not to file rejoinder to rebut the stand of OP-1.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that the complainant is the owner in possession of the subject unit on the first floor whereas OP-2 is the owner of the unit on the second floor i.e. above the subject unit and the seepage started in the balcony of the subject unit of the complainant from the ceiling area, as is also evident from the photographs (Annexure OP-4), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant or if there no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant herself is responsible for the said seepage and the consumer complaint, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. Except the photographs, having been relied upon by the contesting parties in order to prove their respective claims, complainant has not led any other evidence in order to prove that due to negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs, there is seepage on the ceiling area of the subject unit and in this manner the photographs relied upon by the parties are required to be scanned carefully.
   3. Perusal of the photographs (Annexure C-2) clearly indicates that on the ceiling as well as on the wall of the balcony of the subject unit of the complainant, seepage is there, but, it is also clear from the same that the complainant had installed a temporary fixture/shed over her balcony.  On the other hand, photographs (Annexure OP-4), having been relied upon by OP-1, clearly indicate that due to installation of a temporary shed by the complainant, there is slight gap in between the wall and the shed and it is quite possible that rainy water is firstly falling on the said shed and coming to the wall of the balcony of the subject unit and the same may be the cause of seepage on the wall and for that OP-1, who has already sold the subject unit on the first floor as well as OP-2/owner of the second floor unit, cannot be held responsible, especially when nothing has come on record that the complainant had installed the aforesaid fixture/shed after taking approval from the competent authority. Hence, it is unsafe to hold that there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.
   4. So far as the consumer complaint against OP-2 is concerned, as it is an admitted case of the complainant she has not availed any services from OP-2, complainant is not a consumer qua OP-2 and it is safe to hold that the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable qua OP-2.
   5. In view of the above, it is safe to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves dismissal. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/09/2024	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/-
	[Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/-
	[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member