DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 161 of 2014
Date of institution: 06.03.2014 Date of decision : 17.01.2017
J.N. Bakshi, resident of Flat No.125-B, S.B.P. Homes, Sector 126, Greater Mohali, Chhajju Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Vishav Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., c/o SBP Group, SCO # 146-148 (First & Second Floor), Above HDFC Bank, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
2. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Partner/Authorised person of M/s. Vishav Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., /o SBP Group, SCO # 146-148 (First & Second Floor), Above HDFC Bank, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.
3. Ajay Ghakar, Supervisor Maintenance of S.B.P. Homes, Community Centre Sector 126, Greater Mohali, Chhaju Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Present: Shri Pankaj Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
None for OP No.1 and 2.
OP No.3 ex-parte.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant J.N. Bakshi has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant had purchased the flat No.125-B, SBP Homes, Sector 126, Chhaju Majra, Mohali from the OPs. The sale deed of the flat was executed in favour of the complainant by the OPs on 16.03.2012. However, after taking over the possession, the complainant found that the construction work of the flat was substandard and it is not as per the specifications mentioned in brochure. The OPs have not provided the facilities mentioned in the brochure. At the time of signing possession letter, the representative of the OPs assured that if any shortcomings were there, those will be rectified within 15 days but till date nothing has been done by the OPs. The complainant has alleged that Sun Shade slabs on the rear side of the flat are short due to which rainy water enters into the room and kitchen; the tiles fixed are hollow and white cement was not applied between the gaps; the rainy water flowing from stairs comes to entrance and also in the room from balcony because the level of tiles is lower than the level of marble fixed in the stairs; the quality of sewerage and rainy water pipes are very poor and these gets leaked when water flows during rain or overflowing of tanks; electrical switches are of very poor quality; parking space has not been allotted and the area of the complex has been shortened by constructing two extra flats. Despite various complaints made by the complainant, the OPs have not rectified the issues raised by the complainant. Even the legal notices served to the OPs have yielded no result. Hence the complainant has sought directions to the OPs to pay him Rs.85,000/- for the shortcomings pointed out by the complainant; to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs.15,000/- as counsel fee.
2. OP No.1 in the preliminary objections of the written statement has pleaded that the complaint has been filed on false and misconceived facts; the complainant has failed to make out a dispute covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act; the dispute between the parties is of civil nature which can be decided by the civil court. On merits, the OP No.1 has pleaded that the possession was handed over to the complainant as per the assurances. The specifications were conceptual and subject to certain modification which was explained to the complainant. Denying the allegations of the complainant and deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. OP No.2 did not file the reply within the period of 45 days as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court on 04.12.2015 in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., the right of the OP No.2 for filing the reply was struck vide order dated 26.02.2016.
4. Shri Amandeep Bindra, Advocate filed memo of appearance for all the OPs on 15.04.2014 and the case was adjourned to28.04.2014 for filing written statement and POA. But on 28.04.2014 none appeared on behalf of OP No.3 nor any POA/written statement was filed. Thus, OP No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.04.2014.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of brochure Ex.C-1; letter dated 16.03.2012 Ex.C-2; Expert report dated 05.02.2014 Ex.C-3; sale deed Ex.C-4; two legal notices dated 17.02.2014 Ex.C-5 and C-6; postal receipts Ex.C-7; letters dated 31.01.2013 and 29.05.2013 alongwith postal receipts Ex.C-8 & C-9. In rebuttal, OP No.1 and 2 have tendered in evidence affidavit of Sudarshan Verma, their Director as Ex.OP-1/1 and original photographs Ex.OP-1.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that it is evident from the expert report Ex.C-3 of R.D. Sharma, Approved Chartered Engineer that there are numerous defects and deficiencies in the flat and the construction is very poor, due to bad workmanship and lack of proper supervision. Learned counsel further argued that the car parking space has not been provided despite its mention in the sale deed. Besides, this the defects/deficiencies pointed out by the complainant have not been redressed by the OPs.
7. None appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 for addressing oral arguments nor written arguments have been filed on behalf of these OPs. However, OP No.1 has taken the stand in the written statement that the construction was as per the specifications mentioned in the brochure Ex.C-1. The complainant did not raise any objection at the time of sale deed and taking over possession of the flat. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by complainant and the oral arguments of the complainant and written submissions, we find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant. We are of the view that the complainant had pointed out the shortcomings in the flat to Ms. Deepika Sharma, authorised representative of the OPs at the time of taking over possession of the flat vide offer dated 16.03.2012 Ex.C-2. The note given by the complainant on the offer Ex.C-2 is as under:
“The letter was got signed from the undersigned by Ms. Deepika Sharma before registration of Flat No.125B (FF) in SBP Homes without showing the flat. When I asked her that, if any, shortcomings were there in the flat, she told me that al works will be completed within 15 days from today.”
However, the shortcomings pointed out by the complainant have not been redressed despite bringing it to the notice of the OPs through letters dated 31.01.2013 Ex.C-8 and 29.05.2013 Ex.C-9. Even the OPs have failed to rebut the expert report dated 05.02.2014 Ex.C-3 of R.D. Sharma, Approved Chartered Engineers which shows the shortcomings in the flat and regarding the poor quality of construction work.
9. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions, we direct the OPs to pay to the complainant a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) for removal of defects and deficiencies in the flat. We also find that the complainant is entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) on account of mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation costs. The present complaint is hereby allowed.
The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till actual payment.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 10.01.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 17.01.2016
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
