DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.260/13

1.      Sh. Deen Dayal                                                                                (Senior Citizen

          S/o Sh. Chuhar Ram                                                                         65 years old)

          R/o No.88 (Old Plot No.19/65)

          comprising Khasra No.20/1,

          Savitri Nagar (Old Name Village Sheikh Sarai)

          New Delhi-110017

2.      Smt. Santosh

          W/o Sh. Deen Dayal

R/o No.88 (Old Plot No.19/65)

          comprising Khasra No.20/1,

          Savitri Nagar (Old Name Village Sheikh Sarai)

          New Delhi-110017                                          ….Complainants

Versus

1.      Sh. Hemant Wadhwa

          S/o Mr. Kishan Lal,

          R/o 150, Savitri Nagar

          New Delhi-110017

2.      Mr. Gurcharan Singh

          S/o Mr. Amar Singh

          R/o 169A, Savitri Nagar

          New Delhi-110017                                     …...Opposite Parties

                                                             Date of Institution             :   01.05.13    

                                               Date of Order            :   27.05.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Complainants’ case as made out from a reading of the complaint and the evidence adduced by them is that the complainants alongwith others sold property No.88 (old plot No.19/65) comprising Khasra No.20/1, Savitri Nagar (old name Village Sheikh Sarai), New Delhi vide sale deed dated 19.07.17 in favour of the OPs against the sale consideration of Rs.6 lacs (copy Ex. CW1/B). Thereafter, the OPs entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 08.09.07 with one Sh. Harjit Singh for re-development of the said property after demolishing the old structure thereof as per the specifications mentioned in Annexure-A of the Collaboration Agreement (copy Ex. CW1/C).   Thereafter, the OPs sold the ground floor of the said property to the complainants for Rs.12 lacs vide Sale deed dated 28.07.10 (copy Ex. CW-1/D) as per the terms contained in the said sale deed.

Now, according to the complainants, the construction has not been raised and carried out in accordance with the specifications provided in Annexure-A to the Collaboration Agreement dated 08.09.07 and the OPs have not carried out the necessary rectifications /repairs in the ground floor portion of the complainants despite several representations and as per the commercial practice to provide excellent quality of building (first class quality to be precise). According to the complainants, the said work has to be carried out by engaging services of a third party who will charge almost Rs.10 lacs for relaying the floor and the walls of the basement and redoing it in order to save it from decaying due to seepage.  According to them, they are also entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards emotional distress and litigation cost form the OPs. Therefore, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the complainants have filed the present complaint against the OPs for directing them to pay Rs.11,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of payment.

OPs have been proceeded exparte.

Collaboration Agreement referred to above had been entered into between the OPs and Sh. Harjit Singh. The complainants were not the parties thereto. The sale deed dated 19.07.07 was an independent document. It had no connection with the subsequent Collaboration Agreement entered into between the OPs and Sh. Harjit Singh. The complainants were sold the ground floor portion vide an independent sale deed dated 28.07.10. Therefore, the complainants cannot claim that the OPs should have carried out the construction in the building as per the specifications detailed in Annexure-A to the Collaboration Agreement. In other words, the complainants were/are not entitled to claim any claim which has the connection with the Collaboration Agreement.  Therefore, using of inferior material in the construction in the building by the OPs, if any, had no relation with the execution of the sale deed of the ground floor portion in favour of the complainant.  There is no mention of the Collaboration Agreement or the quality of the construction in the sale deed dated 28.07.10 executed by the OPs in favour of the complainants. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complaint is even without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed on this ground.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on  27.05.17.