Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/377/2020

Harvinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dev Construction - Opp.Party(s)

Raj S Jumiyal & B.S. Bisht

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/377/2020
Date of Institution	:	11/09/2020
Date of Decision	:	05/04/2023

 

Harvinder Kaur wife of Shri Bhavin Palan, resident of House No.1143, IInd Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.  M/s Dev Construction, Having office at Flat No.001, Sun City Parikarma, Sector 20, Panchkula.
2. Sh. Dev Dutt Verma son of Sh. Raj Verma (Partner in Dev Construction)
3. Sh. Raj Verma son of Sh. Ram Chander (Partner in Dev Construction), both OPs 2 & 3 residents of Flat No.001, Tower 2, Sun City Parikarma, Sector 20, Panchkula.

Second Address : House No.1281, Sector 26, Panchkula.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. B.S. Bisht, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte (defence of OPs struck off vide order dated 31.10.2022)

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Smt.Harvinder Kaur, complainant against the 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 the complainant had hired the services of OPs by entering into agreement dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure C-1) with OP-1, through its authorized signatory OP-3, for construction of a three storey house of approx. 110 sq. yards at plot No.F2-20, Wave Estate, Sector 85, Mohali.  As per said agreement, OPs had agreed to complete the construction work within seven months from the date of starting of construction work, subject to payment made on time by the complainant.  The complainant had made the payment as per the payment schedule which was also referred in para 2 of the agreement (Annexure C-1). However, OPs had failed to complete the construction work as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement.  The complainant requested the OPs several times, but, nothing concrete was done by them. The complainant had made payment of ₹11,95,000/- to the OPs as per the payment plan, which was also acknowledged by them, and the said amount was paid by complainant after taking home loan from bank, to whom she has been paying interest too.  On 30.1.2020, OPs asked the complainant to resettle the terms and conditions of the construction and under the compelling circumstances, she agreed to resettle the terms regarding which revised agreement (Annexure C-2) was executed on the same day and through this agreement OPs had agreed to complete the construction on or before 31.5.2020.  However, even within the stipulated period, as mentioned above, the said work could not be completed by the OPs, rather the OPs had started harassing the complainant mentally and she was compelled to file a complaint against the OPs with the SSP Mohali on 18.3.2020.  Later on, OPs had agreed to pay total sum of ₹3,90,000/- as full and final amount to the complainant on account of non-completion of the work by them as per the agreement.  In order to discharge their liability of ₹3,90,000/-, OPs had issued three cheques of different dates.  However, when the said cheques were presented, the same were dishonoured.  Thereafter the OPs again entered into an agreement with the complainant on 29.5.2020 (Annexure C-3) whereby OP-3, being representative of the other OPs, had agreed to repay the aforesaid amount through three fresh cheques.  However, again when the said cheques were presented by the complainant, same were also dishonoured.  OPs had agreed to pay the aforesaid amount on account of non-completion of work of the house of complainant due to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant had also issued legal notices dated 24.7.2020 and 10.8.2020 (Annexure C-10 & C-11) to the OPs, but, with no result. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs were properly served and initially they were represented through their counsel, but, later on when they did not file their written version within the prescribed period, their defence was struck off on 31.10.2022 and subsequently due to non-appearance of the OPs/their counsel, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 6.3.2023.

2. In order to prove her case, complainant has tendered/proved her evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that the OPs had agreed to complete the construction work of the house of the complainant within seven months from the date of start of work, as per agreement (Annexure C-1) and later on the said construction work was not completed by the OPs, rather the same was left by them in mid-way, and the OPs had agreed to compensate the complainant by paying an amount of ₹3,90,000/- on account of deficiency in service on their part in non-completion of construction work, and for that purpose they had issued cheques for the aforesaid amount, which were dishonoured and the OPs have failed to pay the said amount to the complainant despite of her repeated requests, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant, being consumer, is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant.
   2. Perusal of the agreement dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure C-1) clearly indicates that the construction work was to be completed by the OPs within seven months from the date of start of work on the payment made by the complainant in time to the OPs. Perusal of agreement dated 30.1.2020 (Annexure C-2) further indicates that due to non-completion of work by the OPs, they had again agreed to complete the construction work by making request to the complainant to extend time and accordingly the new time slab was fixed by the parties i.e. construction work shall commence from 1.11.2019 and to be completed on or before 31.5.2020, as stipulated in para 5 of the said agreement.  Perusal of another agreement dated 29.5.2020 (Annexure C-3) clearly indicates that the OPs had agreed to pay an amount of ₹3,90,000/- to the complainant as they had shown their inability to complete the remaining construction work of the house of the complainant, by issuing three cheques of different dates.  It is the case of the complainant that when the said cheques were presented for encashment before the bank, same were dishonoured.  It is further case of the complainant that later on the OPs had agreed to pay the said amount by issuing three fresh cheques of different dates, but, finally when the said cheques were also presented, the same were dishonoured, as is also evident from the copies of cheques and return memos (Annexure C-4 to C-9). The complainant had further issued two legal notices (Annexure C-10 & C-11) to the OPs requesting them to pay the aforesaid amount, but, the same was not paid by them.
   3. Thus, one thing is clear from the entire documentary evidence, as discussed above and led by the complainant, which is unrebutted by the OPs, that the OPs had agreed to provide services to the complainant for construction of her house by receiving huge amount, but, they left the construction work in the midway, as a result of which they had agreed to pay an amount of ₹3,90,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on their part.  However, when it has further come on record that though the OPs had agreed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant by issuing three cheques of different dates, which were never honoured by the banker of the OPs, it is safe to hold that the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service, firstly on account of non-completion of construction work of the house of the complainant and secondly by not honouring the terms of the agreement (Annexure C-3) through which they had agreed to pay the said amount to the complainant.  Hence, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the OPs are liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith interest and compensation to the complainant.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹3,90,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 11.9.2020 till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 05/04/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member