Haryana

Panchkula

CC/99R/2016

HARYANA OFFICERS COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S N.H CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD &ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN CHAWLA

25 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PANCHKULA

                                                                                                                           

Consumer Compliant No.	:	99 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.4.2016
Date of Decision	:	25.5.2018

 

Haryana Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. GH-2, Shikhar Apartments, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector-5, Panchkula through its Secretary Col.S.P.Puri (Retd.).

                                                                                                                                                      ....Complainant

                                           Versus

1. M/s N.H. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. through its Proprietor Mr. Nitin, H.No. 1704, Sector-21, Panchkula.

 

2. Sunny Incharge, M/s N.H. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. through its Proprietor H.No. 1704, Sector 21, Panchkula.

                                                                                                                                                          ....Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                    Mr. Dharain Pal, President. 

                               Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:        Mr. Varun Chawla, Advocate for complainant.

                              Ms.Chand Deep Jindal, Advocate for OPs.

 

                                                  ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1.     This complaint had been initially dismissed vide order dated 4.5.2016. However, in appeal, the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 25.5.2017 set aside the impugned order dated 4.5.2016 and remanded the case by condoning the delay in filing of complaint subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- as of cost.

2.     The present complaint has been filed by the complainant (Group Housing Society through its Secretary Col.S.P.Puri) against the Ops with the averments that the complainant society was looking for a construction company for the re-carpeting of the internal road in the premises of the society and met the OPs, who had given an assurance regarding the good quality of the work to be executed by them. Before giving work for execution and showed the quotation and 20% payment of the quotation was to be made in advanced by the complainant society and balance 80% on arrival of the machinery at site. The approximately area of the work was Rs.8,000/- sq.mtr. and the cost for the same was Rs. 1,35,000/-. On the assurance of the quality work and warranty life of road would be at least 5-6 years from the date of completion of work, complainant society gave the work of re-carpeting of the internal roads to OPs. The complainant society made the payment of Rs.11,90,700/- to the OPs vide cheque No.336940 dated 14.10.2010 and the 90% payment was made before the work had actually started. It was also assured that in case of any complaint or deficiency the same would be rectified immediately on intimation. But within few days of the completion of the re-carpeting work, the re-carpeted road started withering away and large patches developed. To disappointed with the deteriorating condition of the re-carpeted road the matter was taken up by the Managing Committee of the society and OPs were informed of the position and condition of the road and had requested the OPs to inspect the site vide registered letters dated 17.1.2011, 31.1.2011, 22.2.2011 and 23.3.2011, but neither OPs inspected the site nor suggested the remedial measures nor gave any appropriate reply to the letters. Thereafter, complainant society served a legal notice upon OPs. Thereafter, complainant society had inspected the  road by Expert, who stated in his report that  the hot premixed material brought at site for laying at the prescribed temperature remained either in the barrels or otherwise unused firstly, because has been abnormal delay of more than 15 hours in empting the barrels in one case. Secondly, the maternal in most of the cases has arrival in large quantities which could have not been handled quickly under hot conditions within the prescribed time limit and before the temperature went down. This act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service on their part.

3.     Upon notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing their written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not come before the Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts from the Forum. It is stated by the OPs that they done the work as per specifications decided by the Col. Puri and Sh. P.S.Rawat. The OPs never given any warranty to the complainant society. The OPs are always ready to provide full satisfactory services to all its customers.  The quotation was given only after discussion for the specification of work and decided by the Col.Puri and Sh. P.S.Rawat. It is denied that assurance for 5-6 years given by the OPs. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4.     The learned counsel for complainant placed on record affidavit as Annexure C-A and C-B along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-10 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has placed on record the affidavit as Annexure R-A  along with documents Annexure –R/1 and has closed the evidence.

5.     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

6.     Admittedly, the complainant got the following work executed from OP on the terms and conditions mentioned in the quotation dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure C-1).

                “

S.No.	Description of Work	Unit	Rate
1.	Providing and laying 25 mm thick Premix Carpet having bitumen 3.82% laying with Paver rolling with 8-10 tonne road roller including tack coat @ 50 Kg per 100 Sqm and cleaning the road complete in all respects.	Metric Tonne	2900/-
2	Providing and laying Seal coat with labour having bitumen @ 6.8% rolling with road roller complete in all respect	Metric Tonne	3200/-

Note:-

1. These rates are already negotiated and cannot be further reduced.
2. The above rates are inclusive of cleaning the road with labour and air compressor.
3. Payment 20% Advance on placing order and balance 80% on arrival of machinery at site.
4. The approximate area for the above said work is 8000 sqm and the amount calculated for the above is Rs.13,50,000/-
5. These rates are valid up to 20.10.2010. Due to shortage of raw material and coming winter season the work cannot be executed after 20.10.2010 and further it will be done only after 31.3.2011.”

 

There is no dispute that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 10.71 lacs as admitted by the OP in Para No.3(iv) of the written statement. The grievances of the complainant are that the re-carpeting work of the road carried out by the OP turned out bearing poor quality, within few days of the completion of the re-carpeting work, the re-carpeted road started withering away and large patches developed. In this regard the complainant wrote 4 letters to the OP on 17.1.2011, 31.1.2011, 22.2.2011 and 23.3.2011 (Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-5). But no action has been taken by the OP. However, the complainant served legal notice dated 26.4.2011 upon the OPs. The complainant has also placed on file the photographs of the road (Annexure C-7 and Annexure C-8). The complainant got the work inspected, executed by the OP from Sh. D.N.Sharma, SDE (retired). After physically inspected the road in question Sh. D.N. Sharma, SDE (retired) submitted his report (Annexure C-9). In his report he has mentioned that “However, adverting to the real problem it is necessary to analyse the reasons for the poor results of the work rendered by the firm. For the purpose, a summary has been drawn in respect of receipt of premxed Bitumen material from Hot Mix Plant, time of empting the barrel and re-weighment thereof as to ascertain the quantum of material received and time taken in its consumption. It has been stunning to note, at the fact of the record, that the hot premixed material brought at site for laying at the prescribed temperature remained either in the barrels or other-wise unused firstly because there has been abnormal delay of more than 15 hours in empting the barrels in one case. Likewise abnormal delay is visible at other occasion. Secondly, the material in most of the cases has arrived in larger quantities which could have not been handled quickly under hot conditions within the prescribed time limit and before the temperature went down.

          The firm was probably already apprehensive of the weather conditions and that is why the condition No.5 was inserted in the quotation. The said condition reads as under:-

‘These rates are valid up to 20.10.2010. Due to shortage of raw material and coming winter season the work cannot be executed after 20.10.2010 and further it will be done only after 31.3.2011.’

          The apprehension of the firm is further evident from the details of the temperature shown in the annexed statement from 12.10.2010 to 18.10.2010 where the minimum temperature varies from 5.7 to 8.7 degree and the maximum temperature varies from 20.1 to 22.1 degree.

          The weighment details indicate that the work had been carried out from 15.10.2010 to 18.10.2010. During this period the weather conditions were not that conducive to with-stand loss of time in usage of material after the same is empted from the barrels.

          The overall condition of the road is such that the entire road area is likely to go to dogs after rains. It is, therefore, essentially required that the entire carpet work got done is scarified and removed and got re-laid as per specifications for such work. The approximate loss sustained by the society with the present poor work as done by the Agency is estimated at Rs.15.00 Lac approximately.”

7.     On the other hand, the OPs has not denied the receipt of payment and execution of the work by them. However, in the written statement they have stated that OPs are not deficient and also not liable to pay any kind of compensation. The OPs execute the work as per specifications provided by complainant. The OPs also denied that there was guarantee of 5-6 years of the work executed by them. However, the OPs have not submitted any expert report in support of their contention and they have also not filed any objection against the report of Sh. D.N.Sharma, SDE (retired) (Annexure C-9).

8.     From the above, it reveals that the work executed by the OPs was not as per the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To repair/re-carpet the road in question within the period of one month from the date of received the certified copy of this order.  

 

2. The OPs shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation.

9.     The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date of its communication to them comes. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

 25.5.2018           JAGMOHAN SINGH                     DHARAM PAL

                          MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        DHARAM PAL

                                         PRESIDENT