DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                                      Consumer Complaint No: 390 of 2012                                                                                                                                                   Date of Institution: 19.10.2012                                                                                                                                                           Date of Decision: 10.11.2015.

Harsh Vig s/o Shri S.R.Vig, R/o AC/C-5/04, Ground Floor, Ashiana Classic Floors, Ardee City, Sector-52, Gurgaon-122001.

                                                                                        ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

M/s Ardee City Maintenance Services Pvt. Ltd, Ardee City, Sector-52, Gurgaon through Vice President.

                                                                                         ..Opposite party

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

BEFORE:     SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

 SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

Present:        Authorized signatory of complainant.

                    Shri S.K.Singla, Adv for the opposite party.

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.       

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that opposite party has been increasing water and maintenance charges without any justification and thus, alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has supported his complaint with an affidavit and documents placed on file.

2                 OP in its written reply has alleged that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. On account of rising inflation and other costs, the opposite party has rightfully raised the maintenance and water charges @ Rs.2/- per sq. ft per month on the basis of the order passed by DCDRF, Delhi vide order dated 29.08.2012 but due to protests by the members of RWA who represented that the order of DCDRF, Delhi is being challenged and as a temporary measure reached in the meeting of the OP and RWA, it was agreed to charge water and maintenance at the old rates. Moreover, RWA of the colony has also filed civil suit against the opposite party in which stay application of the RWA has been dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2012 by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gurgaon. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3                 We have heard the parties and perused the record available on file.

4                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that the opposite party has been increasing water and maintenance charges without any justification.

5                 However, as per the contention of the opposite party the water and maintenance charges are being charged as per the rules. Moreover, the present dispute is beyond the purview of this Forum. It was argued that water and maintenance charges are being increased on account of rising of inflation as well as labour charges and other cost factors. It was also pointed out that RWA  of solony has also filed a civil suit against the opposite party and the application has been dismissed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurgaon  and the DCDRF, Delhi has also passed an order on the basis of compromise copy is which is placed on the file as Ann-OP/4.

6                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that RWA of colony has approached DCDRF, Delhi with regard to the same matter where settlement regarding maintenance charges has taken place, according to which the charges have been fixed at Rs.2/- per sq.ft p.m. and the matter was still pending before DCDRF, Delhi. Therefore, when the matter is subjudice before DCDRF, Delhi and the maintenance and water charges has been fixed by DCDRF, Delhi in view of the settlement between RWA and OP and thus, the complaint itself is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek further remedy, if any, before DCDRF, Delhi where the matter is pending. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

Announced                                                                                    (Subhash Goyal)

10.11.2015                                                                                         President,

                                                                                              District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                  Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member