Delhi

New Delhi

CC/318/2012

Rahul Kumar Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Feb 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/318/12                        Dated:

In the matter of:

Rahul Kumar Goyal,

S/o Rama Goyal,

R/o 67C-GF, Parsvnath Panchvati, Taj Nagri,

Phase-II, Agra (UP) - 282001

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

Parsvnath Developers Ltd.,

6th FL, Arunachal Building,

19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The case of the complainant is that he purchased a flat bearing no.67C-GF Parsvnath Panchavati Taj Nagri, Phase-II, Agra and took possession on 23.10.09. After taking possession of the house he found some shortcomp in the workmanship of the house, in plaster, tiles, door panels & windows etc and brought the same to knowledge of OP and wrote a letter dated 04.12.09 followed by several emails, the copies of which have not been placed on record. Alleging deficiency the complaint is filed.

The OP has taken a preliminary objection that he did not purchase the flat and has placed on record the agreement to sell, which shows that Mrs. Rama Goyal is purchaser of flat. The complainant is son of the complainant. It is seen from the record that not only complaint has been filed stating that he purchased the house; the evidence is also in his name. The complaint is filed on 10.04.12, with no authority of this date or earlier date to file the complaint on her behalf. The complainant has filed a letter dated 25.04.12, after filing of case, signed by his mother, who had only authorized him to attend and appear on his behalf. It does not amount to authority or attorney to say that his son is another to file complaint. The son cannot make a false statement in judicial proceedings to say that he purchased the house, and has also filed evidence on affidavit that he purchased the flat. The legal notice to OP is issued by his mother. It is not proper for the son to file false evidence in Court in his name, which is actionable under Criminal law.

Nevertheless, we find that OP has filed on record statement that some rectification were done and some removed is be done and complainant did not cooperate to vacate the room etc for rectification and some rectification were not desired.

In our view, the matter should be amicable settled between the parties, and without going into the technicality of maintainable of complaint being without being authority, we hope that OP will remove the defects by mutual discussion with complainant’s mother, to her satisfaction within 60 days in keeping with the reputation of OP, failing which complainant is given liberty to withdraw the complaint and file a fresh complaint by proper authority of his mother.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 13.02.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER