DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No. | : | 118 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 28.02.2012 | Date of Decision | : | 26.03.2013 |
The Chandigarh Sector 16, Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Plot No.4, Sector 50-C (Victoria Enclave), Chandigarh through its authorised representative/President Kulwant Singh Gill. ---Complainant. Versus 1. M/s Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited, Regional office : 504-505, Rectangle 1, T-4, Saket Place, Saket, New Delhi-110001. 2. M/s Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited, SCO 223, 1st Floor, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant Sh. N.P. Sharma, Counsel for the OPs. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The complainant engaged the services of the opposite parties for installation and commissioning of 10 elevators in 2006. Out of these, 7 elevators have been installed whereas the contract for 3 elevators remains unexecuted. The instant complaint relates to non installation and commissioning of one of these three elevators. As per the agreement between the parties, the elevators in question were mutually agreed to be installed for a price of Rs.90,00,000/- out of which 90% of the price i.e. Rs.88,27,600/- has already been paid. As per clause 26 of the conditions of contract, the opposite parties had offered to complete the elevators installation in 20 weeks from the date of receipt of order on receipt of advance payment. 10% of the balance price was to be paid at the time of commissioning of the elevators. The complainants have alleged that despite payment of almost complete amount, the elevator has not yet been installed. This complaint has been preferred with a prayer for direction to the opposite parties to install and commission the elevator or refund the payment received besides interest, compensation and costs of litigation. 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. 3. The opposite parties in their reply have taken the preliminary objection of the complaint being barred by limitation as the payment was received in the year 2006. On merits, the opposite parties have admitted the factual narration of the case while reiterating the preliminary submissions. The opposite parties have also stated that the complainant has faulted in accomplishing its contractual obligations as per the terms and conditions of the work contract. The opposite parties have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record, including the written arguments. 5. The grievance of the complainant relates to non installation of an elevator by the opposite parties as per the agreed terms and conditions. The opposite parties without replying to the allegations in concrete have taken preliminary objections with regard to the case being delayed and barred by limitation. The opposite parties, in fact, have not explained the cause of delay for non-installation of the elevator. The cause of the complainant is thus continuing as the opposite parties have not fulfilled their part of the agreement. The correspondence between the parties regarding installation of the elevator would also show the continuation of the cause of action in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties have also maintained that the preparatory work as envisaged in the work contract was required to be accomplished by the complainant but the obligation of the complainant has remained unfulfilled. Shifting the burden towards the complainant for non fulfilment of its part of the agreement by the opposite parties, to our mind, is not sustainable as the opposite parties have not placed on record any correspondence to show any request made for completion by the complainant of its part of the contract. It is also given in the averments and written arguments that due to the delay material on site is not only getting spoilt but is also being stolen from the premises. We do understand that the opposite parties need to install the elevator, as
non-installation is causing grave injustice to the residents of the complainant/Society. The opposite parties have not stated that they are unwilling or unable to execute the contract and bring it to its finality. Even the complainant is interested that the elevator be installed and commissioned at the earliest. 6. We accordingly allow the complaint and pass the following directions to the opposite parties :- i) The opposite parties shall install and commission the elevator and make it completely functional within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The opposite parties shall also provide a warranty of 12 months for its proper and efficient functioning from the date of installation and commissioning. (The complainant shall provide the necessary assistance required for the proper installation and commissioning of the elevator.) ii) To pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the harassment caused due to delay; iii) The opposite parties will also pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. 7. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.30,000/- shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization, besides complying with directions as at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 26.3.2013. Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
