District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 404/2022.
Date of Institution:01.08.2022.
Date of Order:24.05.2023.
Manoj Bhargava S/o Shri Rampal Bhargave, R/o C5/1703, ‘Palm Residency’ Trishul Tower, Sector-76, Faridabad. Mobile No. 9811227233.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. Trishul Towers Pvt. Ltd. (Promoters & Developers) Office at 101, Rohit House, 3 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 through its Director/Authorized Representative.
…Opposite party
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Ankur Gosain, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Vipul Goel, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased flat No.C3/1801 in Group Housing Project namely ‘Palm Residency” at Sector-76, Faridabad developed by the opposite party. The builder buyer agreement/agreement for sale had been executed in between the complainant and the opposite party. Thereafter the entire cost of the flat amounting to Rs.40,10,000/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party company and possession of the said flat was handed over by the opposite party company to the complainant in the month of October 2020. The opposite party was also charging maintenance every month from the complainant to the tune of Rs.3100/- per month and the opposite party undertook to provide necessary maintenance service which included fire fighting equipments and refilling of fire extinguisher etc. On 04.11.2021, due to short circuit fire took place in the flat of the complainant and there was no security staff available in the tower, fire extinguishers deployed in the building were found empty, fire alarm was found not working, sprinklers had no water, as such the fire could not be controlled and by the time fire extinguishing vehicles were called for, the entire flat of the complainant went into the flames and all the goods, clothing, belongings, important documents, articles of the complainant burnt into ashes. After the incident, the complainant alongwith other flat buyers made protest against the builder for the above mismanagement but to satisfactory response was given by the opposite party. On very next day i.e. on 05.11.2021, the complainant made a police complaint in Police Station – BPTP, Faridabad against the respondent Company and its director for alleged mismanagement and deficiency in services with respect to the fire safety in the building. It was due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party in providing the fire safety equipments in the building that the flat of the complainant caught fire and got burnt into ashes. The opposite party realized that the matter was going out of their hands and therefore to calm the complainant and other flat owners, and to prevent any legal action, the opposite party company induced the complainant to enter into a compromise with them and hence on 08.11.2021, the Director/authorized representative of opposite party company namely Shri Harish Aggarwal,, Sh. D.D.Aggarwal and Sh. Suresh Aggarwal undertook to allot another flat in lieu of the flat of the complainant and till the time the said new flat was allotted, the directors of the opposite party undertook to pay the rent to the complainant and apart from this, the directors of the opposite party also undertook to reimburse the loss amounting to Rs.7,50,000/- on account of loss of goods, belongings etc. to the complainant Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,50,000/-, the opposite party paid only a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant and also had been paying Rs.9000/- per month on account of rent to the complaint w.e.f. November 2021 till date. The opposite party failed to allot any flat to the complainant nor had compensated the complainant for the loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant had approached the opposite party on various occasions and had requested the opposite party to reimburse the loss suffered by the complainant upon which the opposite party stated to the complainant that he might get the repair charges of the flat assessed and then let the opposite party know about it on which the complainant got the estimate prepared by M/s. Home Décor, Faridabad for the repair of the said flat of the complainant and the said firm had estimated the total cost to be Rs.15,29.500/-.. Eventually despite submission of repair estimate with the opposite party, the opposite party company failed to make payment of the aforesaid amount as well as loss on account of goods and belongings to the complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) pay Rs.15,29,500/- on account of repair charges for the repair of the flat alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of loss till payment to the complainant.
b) pay Rs.6,75,000/- on account of loss of belongings, goods, house hold articles, important document etc. alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of loss till payment to the complainant.
c) pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that it was known to the complainant that the alleged fire was took place in his flat due to his own lapses and negligence as by his own he left a lighting oil diya (Deepak) in his house due to Diwali festival on 04.11.2021 when the complainant and his family member went to a temple for pooja and during that periods, curtains lying in his flat caught fire from the said lighting oil Diya (Deepak). Further the complainant had done fall ceiling/POP in his flat covering the water sprinklers installed in his flat. The complainant was trying to shift his own negligence on the part of the opposite party falsely alleging that the fire took place due to short circuit and the fire system in the project were not working. It was submitted that the alleged incident of fire happened inside the flat of the complainant by his own negligence and the opposite party not responsible for the said negligence of the complainant. As such, the present complaint was without any cause of action as there was no short circuit in the project. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– Trishul towers Pvt. Ltd.. with the prayer to: a) pay Rs.15,29,500/- on account of repair charges for the repair of the flat alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of loss till payment to the complainant. b) pay Rs.6,75,000/- on account of loss of belongings, goo
ds, house hold articles, important document etc. alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of loss till payment to the complainant. c) pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Manoj Bhargava, Ex.C-1 & 2- newspaper cuttings, Ex.C-3 to C12 – photographs,, Ex.C-13 to 15 – letter SHO, Sector-76, Faridabad, Ex.C-16 – letter dated 17.11.2021, Ex.C-17 – affidavit,
Ex.C-18 to 21 – emails, Ex.C-22 – allotment letter, Ex.C-23 - final notice dated 19.08.2020, Ex.C-24 – letter dated 19.08.2020 regarding full & final payment and possession, Ex.C-25 – ledge account, Ex.C-26 - - agreement for sale, Ex.C-27 – proforma maintenance charges invoice, Ex.C-28 – receipt, Ex.C-29 – estimate, Ex.C-30 – total cost of house hold items.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Shri Hairsh Chandra, S/o Shri Shankar Dutt authorized representative of M/s. Trishul Towers Pvt. Ltd., at 102, Rohit House, 3 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi, ledger account, proforma maintenance charges invoice.
6. In this case, the complaint was filed with the prayer of fire damages due to short circuit and claim of Rs.15,29,500/- and replacement of the flat/unit in question.
7. As per the evidence led by the complainant and also pictures/photos submitted by the complainant and also complaint was given to the police and after investigation of the police as well as affidavit submitted by the complainant Manoj Bhargava and correspondence between both of the parties and on the other hand, opposite party has filed affidavit of Shri Harish Chandra, Authorized representative of M/s. Trishul Towerws Pvt. Ltd. At 102, Rohit House, 3 Tolstoy Margm Connaught Place, New Delhi. As per the affidavit of opposite party as well as written statement the fire damage was done because of Chineese lights in the flat in question and defence of the opposite party is that the complainant has made fall ceiling/POP in his flat thereby covering the water sprinklers installed in his flat. At the time of short circuit could not work because the fall ceiling and water sprinklers was covered under the POP. It shows the negligence of the complainant itself. No deficiency is proved as per the pictures submitted by the complainant. No doubt, there was POP on the roof of the flat in question. Opposite party has already paid Rs.75,000/- to the complainant under the pressure of the police and given Rs.9000/- per month as a rent for the period of one year. As per photographs submitted by the complainant and the investigation report of police, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 24.05.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
