*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-*-*-*-**-**-*-*-*-**-*-**-
Advocate Deolankar for the complainant
Advocate Athavale for the Opponent
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 12th December 2013
This complaint is filed by the society against the opponent for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Opponent is dealing in the profession of construction of ownership flats. The members of complainant society have purchased flats from the scheme of opponent which is constructed at Balewadi, Tal. Haveli, District Pune. Opponent has also executed deed of conveyance. This complaint is filed mainly on two grounds i.e compound wall of the building is of poor quality and fell down. The second ground is that the opponent has not properly fixed the interblocks tiles in parking area. Complainant has prayed for directing the opponent to reconstruct the compound wall with proper foundation and refix interblocks tiles and also claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
[2] Opponent has resisted the claim by filing written version in which it has denied flatly deficiency in service and defects in construction. It is the case of opponent that it has never assured to construct compound wall. It has only assured that the fencing will be provided. Moreover, the allegations as regards improper fixing of interblocks tiles in the parking area are also denied by the opponent.
[3] After considering the pleadings of both parties, scrutinizing the documentary evidence, written argument and hearing oral argument of both counsel, following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has established that opponent has caused deficiency in service by constructing defective compound wall and improper fixation of interblocks tiles in parking area ? | In the negative |
2 | What order ? | Complaint is dismissed. |
Reasons-
As to the Point Nos. 1 and 2-
[4] The admitted facts in the present proceeding are that the members of the complainant society have purchased flats from the opponent. The allegations on the part of the complainant against the opponent are not convincly established by the complainant by adducing any evidence. There is no assurance in the conveyance deed as regards provision of compound wall hence that cannot be claimed as of right by the complainant. Complainants have not produced any iota of evidence as regards improper fixation of interblocks tiles in the parking area. In absence of any evidence these reliefs cannot be granted. There is no question of awarding compensation. Hence, this Forum answers the points accordingly and pass the following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Members within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place – Pune
Date – 12/12/2013
