DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No. 164/2012
S. Kulbir Singh Kohli (Senior Citizen)
R/o G-29, Lajpat Nagar-III, 74 years old
New Delhi-110024 ….Complainant
Versus
M/s Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd.
504-505 Rectangle One, (Northern Region),
D-4 Saket Place, Saket,
New Delhi-110017 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 18.04.2012 Date of Order : 31.03.2018
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The Complainant who is a senior citizen got a lift installed in his premises from the OP after spending Rs.9,70,000/- and the OP completed the work on 18.11.10 by making a delay of 5 months. However, the elevator had several shortcomings. The doors were knocking and there was dent in the roof panel and lights were constantly on for 24 hours. There were some other defects in the same which are detailed in the complaint due to which the Complainant and his wife who is also a senior citizen and suffering from severe knee problem have difficulty in climbing to the second floor on which floor they are residing in the building. The OP did not get the work done despite service of legal notice dated 21.05.11 though the OP sent frivolous and baseless reply dated 28.06.11 thereby undertaking to complete the remaining work and denied all the averments of the complainant. The complainant sent a detailed rejoinder dated 30.07.11. Para 16 of the complaint reads as under:-
“16. That in the circumstances due to the non-functioning of lift w.e.f. 1-5-2011 despite spending Rs.9,70,000/- upon its purchase the complainant, his wife and other family members are suffering great hardship, inconvenience and agony for which the complainant claims damages @ 50,000/- per month which till date amounts to Rs.5,00,000/-. Further on account of loss of Rent for 5 months due to the delay in installing the lift and making it operational, as detailed in para 10 above, the complainant claims a sum of Rs.5,25,000/-. That further due to change of site of 5 openings despite inspection of site and approval given by respondent, the complainant had to redo civil work of 5 openings and incur Rs.50,000/- in respect thereof which the respondent is liable to pay reimburse. Thus the complainant claims a sum of Rs.10,75,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Only).”
Hence, the present complaint with the following prayers:-
“(a) Direct the respondent to rectify all defects and shortcomings in the lift and make the same operational immediately, or refund the amount of Rs.9,70,000/- paid by the complainant for purchase of lift alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
(b) Direct the respondent to make payment of Rs.10,75,000/- (Ten Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Only) on account of damages sustained by the complainant as detailed in paras above, due to the deficiency in the services of the Respondent, and further continued to pay damages @ Rs.50,000/- per month till date the lift is made fully operational after rectification of all defects.”
OP in the reply has denied the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his rejoinder.
Affidavits in evidence have been filed on behalf of the parties.
From a perusal of the order sheets it transpires that the list of the problems being faced by the complainant in the functioning of the lift was handed over to the OP on 08.06.12. On 05.05.16 we observed that the total value of the relief claimed in the prayer clause of the complaint is Rs.20,95,000/- and therefore the complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction this Forum. Faced with this situation Sh. G. S. Narula, Advocate for the complainant made the following statement on 30.05.16:-
“Since the lift was made operational pursuant to order of this Forum dated 26-05-12, we do not claim refund of amount paid for purchase of lift as stated in clause (a).”
Therefore, the only relief now sought by the complainant is with regard to award of damages as detailed in the complaint to the tune of Rs.10,75,000/-.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties on this issue and have also gone through the file. The lift in question was installed by the OP on 18.11.10. It went out of order. The complainant had to file the present complaint. It is only in compliance with the order passed by this Forum that the lift was made operational. Therefore, the complainant and his wife who are admittedly senior citizens had to suffer for the defects having occurred in the lift in question. According to the case of the complainant, he had got the lift installed as he alongwith his wife have been residing on 2nd floor of the premises and required the lift for their convenience since his wife was suffering from a severe knee problem and had difficulty in climbing the stair. Non- working of the lift for quite considerable time must have caused tremendous mental agony, pain and trauma to the complainant and his wife. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that there was infact deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand Only) in lumpsum to the complainant towards damages etc. within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand Only ) from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 31.03.18.
