CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.40/11

Dr. Raman Juneja

S/o Late Sh Gyan Chand Juneja

R/o 568, Sector-21 A, Faridabad

Haryana                                                                              …………. Complainant                                                                                       

Vs.

M/s Fierro Ideas

A-7, Ali Extension

Mathura Road, New Delhi

Through its Proprietor

Mrs. Neelima Maheshwari

Presently at:

A-280, Okhla Industrial Area

Phase-1, New Delhi – 110020                                         …………. Respondent

Date of Order: 26.04.13

O R D E R

            The complainant, as per complaint, was constructing a house at his plot bearing No.568 in Sector 21 A, Faridabad and he needed to get railings, gates and other fabrication works done and the contractor, who was supervising the construction work referred the name of the respondent and the respondent was, accordingly, contacted and she visited the site on 04.04.08 and inspected the same for the purpose of fabrication, manufacturing, purchase and fixing of one main gate (with a small gate within) of the building and grills to be installed and fixed for the entire building including grills on front boundary wall adjacent to the gate and on the front facing balcony of first floor, rear side first floor balcony, staircase inside the building leading from the basement to first floor terrace of the design and

-2-

specification.  The respondent categorically assured that the work done by her would be of top most quality and an understanding was arrived at that she would complete the entire work including the glass railings on the inner stairs and the amount agreed was Rs.2,50,000/- and a performa invoice was prepared on that very date.  The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- by a cheque as  advance money and on the insistence of the respondent to pay half the amount for commencement of work, he paid another Rs.75,000/- to her vide cheque dated 12.04.08 and she assured to complete the entire work by August, 2008 but failed to do so despite reminders.  In May – 2008, the complainant informed the respondent about a marriage in his family to be solemnized at that very address and that the entire work should be finished by mid October, 2008 and despite assurance she failed to complete the job and rather made very little progress.  On a visit to her office, the complainant requested the respondent to make two wrought iron security doors for the house and she readily agreed and asked him to provide stainless steel wire mesh (jaali).  The complainant accordingly purchased a high quality mesh and delivered the same at the office of the respondent but she not only failed to fix the doors as agreed but also wrongly withheld the two pieces of mesh and did not return the same and after waiting about two years the complainant got the same fixed through another contractor incurring Rs.15,000/-. Despite assurances, the respondent could not make the house ready for the marriage and as a result it could not be utilized for the purpose and was also dangerous for small children and after great persuasions the respondent, so far as the main staircase is concerned, only got fixed metal pillars studs on the staircase along-with a metal strip welded between each pillar for support leaving the entire lower part unprotected.  So far as main gate is concerned, it is of the own choice of the respondent and made of substandard stainless steel and is hollow having no bolts or locking mechanism and the wood used therein is of cheapest quality and the workmanship is poor.  The boundary railing as well as balcony railing is of similar material and there are no panels fixed on the balcony railing.  Some steel pillars delivered by the respondent for staircase railing are unfinished and are lying in the basement.  Subsequently, the

-3-

respondent stopped answering the telephone calls of the complainant and he sent a letter through a lawyer but in vain.  He visited her office several times where she used to falsely assure that the work would be done within 15-30 days and after dumping the waste material of another site in the house of the complainant, she resorted to extortion tactics by saying that whatever money she had taken from the complainant, she had purchased the material for that and if he wanted the work to be completed, he should pay the remaining payment of Rs.1,25,000/- also. A final estimate/bill for Rs.2,52,000/- was prepared when the complainant visited the office of the respondent on 24.03.09 and, subsequently, on her insistence to pay more the complainant agreed to the demand of the respondent.  A fresh agreement was entered into on 24.03.09 and the respondent received another Rs.50,000/- and again got Rs.32,500/- on 30.03.09 and undertook that the work would be commenced on 02.04.09 and would continue interrupted.  Despite that the work was not properly started and after great persuasion the respondent created one more document on 11.11.09 undertaking to complete the entire work to the satisfaction of the complainant by 14.12.09 and on that day she extracted another Rs.18,000/- from him.  When the respondent did not pay any heed to his repeated phone calls and visits, the complainant sent a strongly worded letter dated 23.08.10 calling upon her to complete the unfinished work but without any effect but even today the entire building is lying without the main gate and without any locking mechanism nor the balcony grill and staircase railing have any glass panels posing a serious threat of any untoward incident.  Vide this complaint, a direction was sought to be given to the respondent to deliver the fabrication material in good and finished condition as agreed and to complete the entire contractual work and to refund Rs.2,25,000/- with interest and also to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakh besides cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.55,000/-.  He also claimed the refund of Rs.15,000/- on account of the stainless steel mesh allegedly delivered to the respondent.

            Notice of complaint was issued to the respondent who put in appearance through counsel and sought some adjournments to file written

-4-

statement but failed to file one and, ultimately, none appeared on behalf of the respondent on subsequent dates of hearing and as such ex-parte proceedings were initiated.

            Complainant furnished his evidence by way of affidavit.

            According to counsel for complainant, the complainant has placed on file all the relevant documents including the invoice (dated 04.04.08) on which there is a writing about payment of Rs.50,000/- as advance and copy of another receipt dated 12.04.08 regarding payment of Rs.75,000/-.  Copy of bill dated 24.03.09 is also part of the file which is to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- and copy of another bill/detail is also available on file in which there is a mention of payment of Rs.32,500/- on 30.03.09.  A writing was prepared on 11.11.09 also (copy on record) and therein there is a mention of payment of another Rs.18,000/-. Copy of relevant correspondence and legal notice purporting to have been sent by the complainant have also been made part of the file. Several photographs have also been brought on the file to support the averments in the complaint.  Submission of the counsel is that despite so much payment made by the complainant and repeated follow-up, the respondent failed to complete the allotted works and it is clear from the photographs and other material on the file that the balcony grill and staircase railing are without any glass penals and are hollow and, thus, pose a serious hazard particularly to elder people and children.  Moreover, according to counsel, the complainant and his family could not enjoy living in the new house due to unfinished works and she even did not return the steel wire mesh delivered by the complainant for security gates.  He relied upon (1994) I Supreme Court Cases 243 Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta to support the contention that if any service of a contractor or builder is hired for consideration, it is a service under the Consumer Protection Act and when the service is defective or it is not what was represented then it would be unfair trade practice and any defect in construction activity would be denial of comfort and service to a consumer.

            As observed above, the complainant has brought on record various documents which indicate the allotment of contract to the respondent for

-5-

completion of certain works and he made payments from time to time and the respondent commenced the allotted work but she failed to complete the same as per specifications. The photographs on the file go to support the version of the complainant that the balcony and staircase railings are without panels and are hollow.  The respondent also failed to complete the security doors work and did not care to return the stainless steel mesh delivered by the complainant to her for the purpose incurring Rs.15,000/-.  Having regard to all the relevant facts, we hold the respondent to be guilty of deficiency in service and hereby dispose of the complaint with a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation including cost of litigation and also to pay another Rs.15,000/- as cost of the stainless steel mesh retained by her (total Rs.65,000/-).  Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof.    

            Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

(HONEY SHRIYAN)              (EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ)             (M.P.MEHNDIRATTA)

    MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT