Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1091/2006

New Delhi House Flats Owners Association - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Kone Elecators (India)Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jul 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1091/06           Dated:

 

In the matter of:

M/S. NEW DELHI HOUSE ASSOCIATION

NEW DELHI HOUSE,

27, BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110001.

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

M/S. KONE ELEVATORS INDIA PVT.

4^TH FLOOR, DCM BUILDERS,

16, BARAKHAMA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

ORDER

Member :  Ritu Garodia

 

The deficiency in the complaint pertains to non-replacement of elevator in housing society.

The facts stated briefly are that the consumer and OP entered into a contract on 12.10.2004 for replacement of two lifts which was to be done within 18 months (contract annexed).  Complainant had also paid Rs.14,68,700/-.   (photocopy of cheque for Rs.6,18,400/-) is annexed.  The replacement has not been done till date.

OP in its version has defended the delay on grounds of, delay in various approvals by complaint’s association.  OP contends that General Agreement Drawing was approved only on 5.1.2005 but is completely silent as to date on which the approval was sought.   It has also sated that though the delivery of materials was done by second week of April, payment of Rs.8,50,000/- was made only on 14.6.2005.  OP further sent a letter dated 21.6.15 where the work on lift was to commence from 27.6.05 and to be completed within three months.  OP alleges that work was hampered by lack of separator wall between lifts and intimation to this effects was given by letter dated 13.8.2005.  They have also annexed letters dated 19.4.2006, 2.5.2006, 3.5.2006, 12.5.2006, and 22.5.2006 blaming the complainant association for cause of delay.

We have summarily considered rival contention and find that OP has failed to give proper justification for delay.  Complainant has stated in oral submission that lift was not installed till date and they had to get a lift installed by other company.  The contact was entered on 12.10.2004 with completion period of 8 months i.e. by 12.6.2005.  OP has taken a plea of delay in approvals without substantiating its stand as to when the approval was sought  Scrutiny of correspondence reveals that a demand letter by OP was issued on 19.3.05 and payment was made by cheque dated 14.6.05.  Letter dated 13.8.05 states that work is in progress   Subsequent letters dated 19.4.2007, 2.5.2006, 3.5.2006 have admitted delay was due to technical issued and problems with sub contractors.  A lift in a building with multiple floors is a necessity which has to be addressed and speedily rectified.  A contract is therefore entered with time as an important factor.  The technical requirements should have been taken into account at the time of entering into contract.  OP by no adhering to strict time schedule caused grave distress and untold misery to occupants of the building.

  We, therefore, direct OP to refund Rs.14,68,700/- with 09% interest from date of interest till  realization. We also award Rs.50,000/- as compensation for suffering, anguish, disruption of day-to-day activity caused to complainant due to negligent and unresponsive actions of OP in providing services.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free

of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 02.07.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER