CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.1366/2005
M/S TRIVENI EDUCATIONAL AND
SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY,
M-BLOCK, VIKASURI,
NEW DELHI-110008
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- NATIONAL WATER SEAL CORPORTION,
N-11, MARKET, GREATER KAILASH-I,
NEW DELHI-110048
- SH. D.S. BHATIA
MANAGING DIRECTOR
NATIONAL WATER SEAL CORPORATION
N-11, MARKET, GREATER KAILASH-I,
NEW DELHI-110048
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:17.10.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
Complainant is a registered society. The main objects of the society are to establish educational and other institutional for imparting education. The basement of building own by the complaint at M-Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi was damaged by flood and inundation. Complainant on the basis of representation made by OP, entrusted the work of water proof/sealing of aforesaid basement to the OP vide agreement dated 13.06.97. As per the agreement, OP was to undertake the work w.e.f. 23.05.97 and the work was to be completed within 30 days and if the same was not completed within 30 days, complainants shall be entitled to deduct Rs.1000/- per day. OP did not complete the work in terms of agreement dated 13.06.97. OP have been paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- however OP failed to complete the entire work.
It is further stated that the work done by the OP was defective and was not in accordance with the specifications. The work was inspected in presence of the OP and in presence of architect M/s ABRD and OP admitted that the work done by him was defective and OP further agreed to rectify all the defects. The same were not rectified despite number of letters written to OP and even a legal notice was sent. It is stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complainant has claimed for a sum of Rs.2,88,100/- from the OP as detailed in Para 22 of the complaint.
OP in its reply took the plea that in fact OP have completed the work before stipulated period i.e. 30 days. OP has stated that he is a small businessman and does not want to drag/linger on the matter and since the architect has assessed the left over work to the tune of Rs.60,000/-, OP is ready to get the said amount deducted from the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is stated that there was no clause in the agreement that the payment shall be made as per the inspection made by ABRD architect. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP hence the complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
It is a very strange matter where the agreement between the parties took place on 13.06.97 whereas the work has begun on 23.05.97 and the same was concluded within 30 days meaning thereby that when the work was undertaken, there was no such clause in existence though OP has admitted that he has completed the work before expiry of 30 days.
Without going into the merits of the case, it is significant to note that complainant is a registered society and is engaged in commercial transaction as it is running the educational institution for imparting education. As per section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the complainant is not a consumer hence the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
