Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

          This consumer complaint pertains to failure on the part of O.P. to rectify the defects in the installed lift at the complainant-Society vis-à-vis deficiency in service on that count.

          Undisputed facts are that as per the agreed contract Opposite Party (in short O.P.) agreed to install two lifts of the desired specifications which were to be fitted in lieu of replacement of old/existing lifts at the complainant-Society.  Proposal in that respect was made on 22/03/2006 and acceptance was communicated on 13/06/2006.  Revised cost of one lift was Rs.17,76,000/-.  Initially agreed price was Rs.12,25,000/- and after certain agreed modifications, price was modified, mentioned supra.  The lift was accordingly installed and made functional and handed over to the complainant-Society on 12/12/2006.  Thereafter, on 27/05/2007 complainant-Society had written to O.P. pointing out certain defects in the first operational lift newly installed.  It is the grievance of the complainant that O.P. failed to pay any heed to their complaint and failed to rectify the defects.  Hence, they filed this consumer complaint inter alia claiming relief of refund of consideration paid for the said lift of Rs.16,27,560/- and compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs towards loss, damage and mental agony along with accrued interest @ 18% p.a. from 05/11/2007.

          This consumer complaint is opposed by O.P.  As per its written version dated 26/06/2009, they denied the every allegation as to deficiency of service on its part.  Further submitted that on 12/12/2006 lift was inspected and handed over to the complainant and they accepted it without any protest and complainant signed the acceptance letter accordingly.  It is specifically denied that there is any defect in the elevator or they were deficient in service in attending the problem as per free maintenance service offer.  With this they asked to dismiss the complaint.

          Both the parties lead their respective evidence on affidavits.  Closed their evidence as per joint pursis dated 13/06/2010.  Both parties are heard.  Their written briefs of arguments are also considered.

          Following points arise for our determination and we record our finding thereon in short for the reasons to follow :-

                     Points                                                                        Finding

1.       Whether complainant established deficiency in                  No

          service on account of non-removal or failing to

          rectify defects in the lift?

2.       Whether complainant established their claim for                No

          compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs?

3.       What order?                                                                    As per final order.

REASONS :-

          In support of his case, complainant filed affidavit of Mr.Hemendra Patel to counter the affidavit of Meeta Thakkar filed on behalf of O.P.  Documents which are placed on record by both the parties are not disputed.

          Though the complainant mentioned that defects in respect of which the complainant alleged unfair trade practice vis-à-vis deficiency in service are mentioned in communication dated 27/05/2007 (Exhibit-G).  It reveals as under :-

          In the complaint letter dated 04/04/2007 received by the complainant from O.P. is mentioned.  However, it does not reflect any defect in the first lift/elevator which is installed.  It only says about facility or specification of the said lift.   Though, the complainant had referred to 19 items as per Exhibit-G and which according to it O.P. failed to rectify; failed to substantiate its such contention.  Bare subjective assessment in his affidavit by Mr.Hemendra Patel would not help the complainant.  There is no inspection report of any expert in respect of bad craftsmanship of the said elevator.  After installation of said elevator on 12/12/2006, along with the copy of the inspection report speaking for wellness of the elevator (lift), possession of the elevator was handed over to the complainant-Society and complainant-Society accepted the same by signing acceptance form having satisfied that said lift’s installation and the craftsmanship was as per their contract.  Relevant contents of said acceptance letter read as under :-

“We have examined the elevator installation furnished and completed by you in the above building in terms of our contract with you and hereby accept the same”.

          Complainant-Society has made full payment against installation and making functional of first lift.  The project or contract of installing second lift appears to be abandoned at the request of the complainant.  O.P. has even refunded back balance amount along with their letter dated 21/10/2009.

          Under the circumstances, we find that the complainant-Society failed to establish its case of alleged service deficiency on the part of O.P.  It is not a case of unfair trade practice.  Consequently, we hold accordingly and answered the points for determination Nos.1&2 in the negative and pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Complaint stands dismissed.

2.       In the given circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs.

3.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.