DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.91/2020

Date of Institution: 06.08.2020

Judgment Reserved on: 25.04.2024

Judgment Passed on: 25.04.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member) on Leave

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Order By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Judgment

By the judgment the Commission would dispose off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency in not completing the construction work of his plot despite having taken the payment.

1. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he is the owner of Property No. 231, Block A, Sector-NRI Sds Yeida at Yamuna City and he entered in to an agreement with the OP by which complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.4,10,000/- towards the cost of construction and OP was supposed to complete the work within 90 days from the date of agreement. The complainant made the payment of Rs.1,96,000/- to the OP but respondent has not completed the construction and has not complied with terms and conditions of the agreement and even the material used by the OP was of low quality and furniture of the complainant was totally damaged. He asked the respondent various times but he never gave any satisfactory reply which conduct of the OP is uncalled for, unfair and illegal as complainant has suffered loss on account of such non completing the construction as per the agreement and therefore the same amounts to deficiency in service and he has filed the present complaint thereby seeking directions to the OP to complete all the work and pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith litigation charges of Rs.50,000/-.
2. Notice was given to the OP who has not received the notice rather same was received back with the report ‘unclaimed’ and accordingly OP was deemed to be duly served and since he did not appear, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2023. Complainant has filed his own evidence and has also filed written arguments. The Commission has heard the argument and perused the record.
3. The prayer of the complainant is that OP be directed to complete the construction. Although agreement as entered into in between the complainant and OP has been filed on record and certain photographs have also been filed but the complainant has not been able to clarify as to what work/jobs are still uncompleted. The site plan has not been filed. Even there is no detail produced as to what and what work have been left and what work are yet to be done. There is no report of any architect as to how the quality of material used was not proper and from the complaint, it cannot be made out as to what particular construction was to be done and how much out of that construction has been completed. It also cannot be made out as that whether the plastering has been left or whether the walls have been left or whether any other part of the construction, as per agreement has been left. There are around 22 works which have been agreed upon by the OP to be done for the complainant for an amount of Rs.4,10,000/-. The complainant has although filed the various receipts showing that payments were made by him i.e. Rs.21,000/- on 16.08.2018, Rs.20,000/- on 18.10.2018, Rs.50,000/- on 29.12.2018, Rs.30,000/- on 05.03.2019, Rs.15,000/- on 18.04.2019, Rs.30,000/- on 16.09.2019, Rs.30,000/- on 20.12.2019 and there is no reply filed by the OP on record, and therefore this contention of the complainant although has gone unrebutted yet the Commission is not able to appreciate the version of complainant with respect to deficiencies/work. The total cost paid by complainant against this agree is of Rs.1,96,000/- and as per the complainant himself he had to pay Rs.4,10,000/- out of which he has paid only Rs.1,96,000/-. There is no clarity in the complaint as to what portion remained uncompleted and why remaining payment has not been made by complainant and since the complaint is too vague on all these aspects, the Commission is of the opinion that in absence of any specific pleadings that what work has been done and what work was yet to be done, the deficiency cannot be presumed by the Commission and accordingly complainant has not been able to prove as to what exactly is this deficiency on the part of OP, against the part payment received by him. The complainant has not been able to high light even in the written argument as to whether he made the remaining payment or not.
4. Keeping in view all this facts particular as to what deficiency exactly is, which not been pleaded even, the complainant has not been able to prove the deficiency against the OP. The complaint is therefore dismissed.
5. Copy of the Judgment be supplied/sent to all the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to record room.