Haryana

Karnal

CC/651/2021

Balbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Roots Architects & Interiors - Opp.Party(s)

Jagdeep Singh

16 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 651 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt 23.11.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 16.07.2024

 

Shri Balbir Singh Gora son of late Ram Sarup Gora resident of ward no.10, Mangal Colony, Karnal, Haryana-132001. Presently at: House no.C-127, Sector-36, Ansal Town Karnal, Haryana-132001.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Roots Architects and Interiors Central Market, G.T. Road, near Kaaran Gate, Karnal, Haryana-132001 through its partners:

1. Shri Anil Gupta.
2. Ms. Sugandha Gupta.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur..…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Jagdeep Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                 Shri Kanavdeep Singh, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is the owner in possession of plot no.C-127, Sector-36, Ansal Town, Karnal, Haryana, ad-measuring 166.5 sq. mtrs. In November 2019, the complainant in order to get the sanctioned/building plan prepared and approved from the competent authorities/DTP, approached the OPs and handed over all the document to them. The complainant also paid the professional fees of Rs.10,000/- and OPs promised to issue the receipt against the said amount but refused to issue the same on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the requisite fees for building permit was also deposited, vide receipt no.HOBPAS/receipt no.7702/19-20 dated 08.11.2019 for Rs.2502/- and receipt no.HOBPAS/receipt no.7704/19-20 dated 08.11.2019 for Rs.26,932/-. Thereafter, OPs handed over the computer generated drawings of the building plan to the complainant and assured that the sanctioned building plan would also be handed over within a week. OPs also advised the complainant to start raising the construction as per the computer generated drawings of the building plan provided by them and accordingly, the complainant started raising the construction. Complainant requested the OPs to handover the building plan duly sanctioned by the competent authority/DTP, the OPs told not to raise further construction on the pretext that the DTP officials had taken the snaps/photographs of the construction site. The OPs also told that the complainant will have to pay hefty fine upto Rs.2,50,000/-, because the building plan had not been sanctioned till then. It is further alleged that despite receipt of the professional fees and deposit of Rs.2502/- and Rs.26,932/-, the OPs have failed and refused to get the building plan sanctioned from the competent authority/DTP, with ulterior motive and malafide intentions and in order to extort more money from the complainant. The complainant requested the OPs so many times to get the building plan sanctioned from the competent authority, but in vain. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 18.01.2021 to the OPs, calling upon them to make the payment of penalty imposed by the office of DTP alongwith Rs.50,000/- on account of mental pain and agony caused by the OPs to the complainant, but in vain. Despite the repeated requests and personal visits of the complainant, the OPs have failed and refused to get the building plan sanctioned from the competent authorities/DTP, instead have demanded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant, in order to settle the matter with the DTP office and get the building plan sanctioned. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 i.e. Anil Gupta is neither proprietor nor partner in the firm Roots Architects and Interiors. Though, OP no.1 Anil Gupta has nothing to do with the functioning of the firm Roots Architects and Interiors.There has been clearly mentioned in the complaint that financial transaction whatsoever is with the firm i.e. Roots Architects and Interiors, which has no concern with the OP no.1 i.e. Anil Gupta. Though, the complaint may be rejected on this ground also. OP no.1 Anil Gupta does not do any commercial work related to the drawing and building plan, Architecture etc. as alleged by the complainant in the complaint. So, the question of taking any professional fee from the complainant regarding making drawing of building plan does not arise at all. OP no.1 deals with Vastu of the house which is done by the OP no.1 after the completion of house, So, if any person wants services of OP no.1 regarding Vastu that can only be done after the completion of structure of the house. It is further pleaded that OP has never told the complainant that he would have to pay fine of Rs.2,50,000/-, because the building plan had not been sanctioned till then. The OP never had any conversation with the complainant regarding the alleged incident. The CD given by complainant is false, fake and concocted one. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.2 i.e. Sugandha Gupta is proprietor of firm Roots Architects and Interiors, which is a registered firm in Udhyog Aadhaar. Though, OP no.1 has nothing to do with the functioning of the firm Roots Architects and Interiors as he is not partner of proprietor in the abovesaid firm. Complainant approached to the OP no.1 having some rough site plan for assigning OP no.1 as an Architect for approval of building plan for plot no.C-127, Ansal Town, Sector-36, Karnal in the 1^st week of October, 2019. Before accepting the assignment OP no.2 visited the abovesaid site and at that time there was no construction on the abovesaid site. So, OP no.2 accepted the assignment and asked for fees to the tune of Rs.25,000/-which was to be paid at the time of approval of building plan. It is further pleaded that complainant was having some rough site plan, which was made by some other Architects and complainant wanted to render the services of firm Roots Architects and Interiors only for the approval of building plan. On 07.11.2019, application no.HOBPAS-4738/19-20 was initiated and on 08.11.2019, the complainant has paid legal fees to Department of Town and Country Planning. On 09.11.2019, OP no.2 has again visited the abovesaid site on which he was shocked to see that there was construction going on upto DPC level and on the site walls were also raised upto 5 feet level by the complainant without giving any knowledge about the same to OP no.2. The complainant was also present at the site and OP no.2 has duly informed the complainant that he is doing illegal work and now OP no.2 will have apply for his building plan approval. Till date no fees have ever taken by the OP no.2 from complainant. It is further pleaded that OP no.2 has also made a written complaint before Town and Country Planning Department on 19.11.2019 regarding the illegal construction of complainant being a duty bound Architects. It is further pleaded that complainant has never given any professional fee to the OPs till date. So the question of giving receipt of the same does not arise. OP no.2 asked for Rs.25000/- as professional fees which was to be given after the building plan approval which is not approved till date, so complainant has never paid any single penny to the OP no.2. The complainant has deposited Rs.2502/- and Rs.26932/- to Town and Country Planning regarding the application for building permit on 08.11.2019 but the application for building permit have to be given before starting any construction over the site, but in this case the complainant have raised illegal construction over the site at the time of giving abovesaid application without the knowledge of OP no.2. OP no.2 never handed over any computer generated drawing of the building plan to the complainant. It was complainant who got those drawings made by some other Architect or any other concerned person and copy of which was given to OP no.2 by the complainant only. The OP no.2 job was only to get building plan sanctioned from the Town an Country Planning before starting any type of construction. On the business card of Roots Architects and Interiors, name of OP no.1 is there because the deals with Vastu Science for the houses. His work is only to render his services regarding Vastu Structure of the house, which is to be done after the completion of the house. OP no.1 has nothing to do with the functioning of firm Roots Architects and Interiors as he is neither partner nor proprietor. No such incident have ever happened on 09.11.2019 actual story was that OP no.2 has visited the abovesaid site on which she was completely shocked to see that there was construction going on upto DPC level and on the site walls were also raised upto 5 feet level by the complainant without giving any knowledge about the same to OP no.2. The complainant was also present at the site and OP no.2 has duly informed the complainant that he is doing illegal work and now OP no2 will nto apply for his building plan approval.  Till date no fees has ever taken by the OP no.2 from complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A,  copy of aadhar card Ex.C2, copy of application of building permit Ex.C3, copy of business card and site plan Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, copy of telephonic conversation between complainant and OP Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 03.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Anil Gupta Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Sungandha Gupta Ex.OP2/A, photographs of site dated 09.11.2019 and 06.07.2021 Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2, copy of registration certificate Ex.OP3, copy of Udhog Aadhaar Memorandum Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 07.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainants, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is the owner in possession of plot no.C-127, Sector-36, Ansal Town, Karnal, Haryana. The complainant in order to get the sanctioned the building plan, deposited the requisite documents and fees to the OPs and OPs handed over the computer generated drawings of the building plan to the complainant and assured that the sanctioned building plan would also be handed over within a week. OPs also advised the complainant to start the construction work as per the computer generated drawings of the building plan. The complainant started the construction but OPs did not sanctioned the building plan from the competent authority i.e. DTP. The complainant requested the OPs so many times to get the building plan sanctioned from the competent authority, but in vain and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint..

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the building plan had not been sanctioned till then. The complainant approached the OPs having some rough site plan for approval of the building plan for the plot in question. Before accepting the assignment OPs visited the abovesaid site and at that time there was no construction on the site, so OPs accept the assignment. Complainant without sanctioning site plan from the competent authority had started construction work at the site. OPs never assured the complainant to start the construction work before sanctioning the site building plan from the competent authority. Complainant was himself on fault and OPs are not liable for the wrong act of the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           The complainant has alleged that OPs assured him the sanctioning building plan would be handed over within a week and OPs had advised the complainant to start the construction work as per computer generated drawings of the building plan provided to him by the OPs. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file to prove that OPs have promised and advised to start construction work prior to sanction the building plan from the competent authority. It was the duty of the complainant to start the work after sanctioning the building plan by the competent authority but he had started the construction work without sanctioning the building plan by the competent authority i.e. District Town Planner, Karnal. This fact has been proved from the photographs Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2. Thus, complainant himself at on fault and for that OPs cannot be blamed. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 12.          Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid on merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.07.2024                                                                    

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.      

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Sarvjeet Kaur)    

                 Member                   Member