STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :   253 of 2016

Date of Institution:   22.03.2016

Date of Decision:    22.07.2016

1.      Balinder Kumar Sood s/o Sh. Balraj Sood

2.      Manjula Sood w/o Sh. Balinder Kumar Sood

Both Residents of Flat No.37, 2^nd Floor, Era Group, Barnala Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                                      Appellants/Complainants

Versus

1.      Era Commercial Services Private Limited, Laurel Garden, Part-II, Barnala Road, Sirsa, through its Manager.

2.      Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Adel Landmarks Limited, formerly known as Era Landmarks Limited, H.O. B-14, Sector 3, Noida.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

Present:               Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Sunnydeep Juneja, Advocate for respondents.

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

Balinder Kumar Sood and Manjula Sood-complainants/appellants purchased Flat No.37, 2^nd Floor, Era Group, Sirsa, from Era Commercial Services Private Limited-Opposite Parties/respondents. The possession of the flat was delivered on January 12^th, 2013 and conveyance-deed was executed in favour of the complainants on January 23^rd, 2013.

2.      The complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘the District Forum’), averring that the construction material used by the opposite parties was of inferior quality due to which cracks developed in the flat. They approached the opposite parties to repair the flat but to no avail.

3.      The opposite parties-respondents contested the complaint while denying the allegations of the complainant.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated January 28^th, 2016 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties as under:-

“…the complaint is allowed with cost of Rs.5000/- and Ops are directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lacs) to the complainants on account of loss suffered by them due to defects in the construction work of their flat. The cost and awarded amount shall be given to the complainants in equal share. Compliance of this order be made within forty five days from the date of the order, otherwise, the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 12.01.2015 till its realization.”

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants/complainants has urged that the compensation awarded to the complainants is on lower side because as per the report (Annexure-A) of R.S. Saxena, ASDE (Retired), PHE Department, Haryana, the loss was assessed at Rs.7 to 8 lacs. So, the complainants be awarded compensation as per the report (Annexure-A).

6.      The contention raised is not tenable. Indisputably, Rs.7-8 lacs was the estimated cost of repair of the flat. For ready reference, the relevant part of the report (Annexure-A), is reproduced as under:-

“Keeping in mind the prevailing market rates of labour and material, the total cost of repair is estimated approximately Rs.7 to 8 lac.”

7.      It is not the case of the complainants that they have incurred the amount of Rs.7-8 lacs on the repair of their flat. They have not led cogent and convincing evidence to substantiate their claim of Rs.7-8 lacs.   

8.      Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that the compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs awarded to the complainant is just and reasonable. No case for enhancement is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

CL