Delhi

North West

CC/162/2021

CHAMAN LAL AGNIHOTRI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJAY ANAND - Opp.Party(s)

06 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION-V, NORTH-WEST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/162/2021
( Date of Filing : 22 Mar 2021 )
 
1. CHAMAN LAL AGNIHOTRI
S/O LATE SH.BADRI NATH R/O H.NO.2,PKT H-32,SEC-3,ROHINI,DELHI-110085
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. SANJAY ANAND
M/S S.A. WATER PROP.SOLUTIONS CO.,A-4/132,PASCHIM VIHAR,NEW DELHI-110063
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  NIPUR CHANDNA PRESIDING MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 06 Dec 2024
Final Order / Judgement

ORDER

06.12.2024

 

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

  1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant hired services of OP proprietorship firm for the water proofing/guniting of the basement situated at C 35/2, Lakhi Ram Park, Khasra No. 10-5-2 Kirari Suleman Nagar, Sector 41, Rohini, Delhi. It is stated that after completing the job the owner of the OP company received all payments and then issued warranty certificate for the quality of work for ten years for seepage or leakage for the area where the water proofing done by the OP.
  2. It is stated that on 17.12.2020 complainant noticed leakage of water under stairs and seepage in all the four walls from bottom to the ground level. It is stated that complainant made a complaint to OP than owner Sh. Sanjay Anand visit the site and send his two mistri to seal the leakage point near stairs and left. It is further stated that complainant again visited the sealed point and found that the leakage/seepage could not stop and OP miserably failed. It is stated that complainant made a telephone call to contact OP owner but he avoided, thereafter, complainant sent a registered letter on 18.01.2021 and again on 26.02.2021 but letter came back with false remarks that no satisfactory reply came from the OP. It is stated that complainant personally visited the OP and had conversation and OP owner promised to start the work for stopping leakage and seepage but failed to fulfill the verbal as well as written commitment. As such complainant filed present complaint with this commission for redressal of his grievance.
  3. Notice of the complaint issued to OP. As per record affidavit of service alongwith tracking report filed by complainant according to which OP was duly served on 08.04.2021. The OP neither appeared nor filed WS during statutory period as per CP Act, therefore, proceeded ex parte vide order dated 12.05.2022.
  4. Complainant filed ex parte evidence by way of his affidavit. In the affidavit contents of complaint reiterated. Complainant relied on the copy of payment made to OP of Rs.1,54,000/- Ex.C1, copy of warranty certificate Ex.C2, photograph of heavy leakage and seepage at basement Ex.C3 (colly), copy of letter dated 18.01.2021 alongwith postal receipt Ex.C4,  copy of letter dated 26.02.2021 alongwith postal receipt Ex.C5 (colly) and copy of quotation given by Hydro Guniting Co. of Rs.14,26,000/- dated 22.04.2023 Ex.C6.
  5. Complainant filed written arguments.
  6. We have heard Sh. Karan Panchal counsel for complainant and perused the record.
  7. As per record the water proofing work was done by OP company in the premises of the complainant on 15.12.2011. The complainant has lodged the complaint in respect to the leakage on 17.12.2020 verbally to OP company and as assured vide warranty dated 15.12.2011 the employee of the OP visited the premises carried out the necessary repairing work without taking any single penny from the complainant.
  8. Admittedly, the water proofing work was done by OP company in complainant’s premised on 15.12.2011. Since 15.12.2011 till 17.12.2020 complainant had not raised any complaint in respect to the leakage/seepage in the premises. It is admitted fact that complainant raised a complaint with OP in respect to the leakage and OP as assured duly repaired the same within the warranty period as such we find no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Moreover, the complainant has not paid any relief in the present complaint, however, had prayed for direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 14,26,080/-  along with other relief that too without any documentary evidence of incurring any such expenses in his evidence by way of affidavit.
  9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. We therefore, find no merits in the present complaint. Same is hereby dismissed.
  10. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  06.12.2024.

 

 

 

     SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                      RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                              MEMBER           

 
 
[ NIPUR CHANDNA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.