PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

                Concisely put, the instant complaint is with regard to installation of lifts in flats situated at Goodwill Enclave, Sector 49-C, Chandigarh, consisting of 03 Societies namely (i) Oriental Insurance Employees Coop. H.B. Society Ltd., (ii) Railway Employees Coop. Society and (iii) Private Teacher Coop. H.B. Society Ltd. The Enclave comprising of 09 Blocks having 81 Flats, having provision of 09 lifts, out of which 07 were functioning and 02 were non-functional. It was alleged that despite having made the entire payment and repeated requests by the Complainants, to install the lift in their respective Bocks, the OPs did nothing to redress their grievances, due to which the Complainants and their family members had put to lot of inconvenience and harassment. A legal notice was also sent to the OPs, which remained un-replied. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs, seeking their version of the case. 

3.                OP No.1, in his reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that civil work of the lift was to be got done by the Complainants, which they failed to do, due to which lifts were not installed. It was submitted that OP No.1 had issued final legal notices to the members, requesting them to deposit their respective amounts, for completion of the lift work, but to no avail. Rest of the contentions of the complainants were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on his part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                OP No.2 in his reply admitted the factual aspects of the case.  It was pleaded that at the time of purchase of flats by the Complainants, no lift was provided, only a provision for installation of lift was there. The Managing Committee of the OP No.3 had convened a meeting on 13.2.2010, wherein ex-President of OP No.2 had divulged that they had already made the payment of their share to the OP No.1 for installation of lift in the block of the Complainants, vide Cheque dated 17.9.07 for Rs.1.60 lacs, but the OP No.1 did not deposit his full share with M/s Otis. The Committee of OP No.3 had even written letters to the OP No.1 to that effect, but nothing positive could come out. Rest of the contentions of the complainants were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on his part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                OP No.3, in his separate written statement, took similar pleas as had been taken by the OP No.2 in his written statement and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                OP No.4, in his reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the lifts which have been installed in the blocks of the OP Society, were already working and have been installed. It was submitted that Oriental Society had already taken a payment of Rs.1,03,437/- in excess from the OP towards installation of lift. However, since Oriental did not install the lift, a letter was written to refund even the aforesaid amount, as the Oriental Society had no right to retain the said amount, unless it installs the lifts. Only a balance of Rs.56,563/- was due, which would be paid to the Oriental Society, the moment it starts work for installation of lift. Rest of the contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on his part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

7.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

8.                We have heard the learned Counsel for Complainant, OP No.1, OP No.4 and OP No.3 in person and have also perused the record.

9.                 The main contention of the complainants is that despite having made the entire payment and repeated requests to install the lift in their respective Bocks, the OPs did nothing, due to which they alongwith their family members have faced lot of inconvenience and harassment. Annexure C-1, Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-3 are the copies of the possession certificates which show that the complainants are the registered holders of the flats in question. Annexure C-8 is the copy of the notice sent by complainant no. 1 to the OPs regarding non installation/ commissioning of lift machines for houses no.2339 to 2347; in reply to which OP-4 vide Annexure C-9 dated 25.02.2010 wrote that the OP-1 was to take action and get the lift installed. It was further advised to approach the President of OP-1 for installation of the lift.  A similar reply vide Annexure C-10 dated 28.02.2010 was also sent by OP-3 to complainant no. 1, in which also it was informed that they have arranged a meeting with OP-1 and are making efforts for installation of lift in their block. Annexure C-7 is the copy of the letter dated 14.01.2010 written by OTIS, New Delhi to OP-1 in which it they had requested the OP-1 to release the balance payment, so that the installation and commissioning work of balance 2 lifts could be completed.

10.              The OP-2 to OP-4 in reply to the submission of the complainants submitted that they had already made the payment of their share amount to OP No.1 for installation of lift in the block of the Complainants and were also ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.56,563/- as mentioned in Annexure R-4/4, but OP No.1 did not deposit his full share with M/s OTIS. They had even written letters to the OP No.1 to that effect, but nothing positive could come out. Annexure R-I dated 13.02.2010 and Annexure R-4/3 dated 27.07.2009 are the copies of the letters written by OP-2 and OP-4 to OP-1 with a request to install the lifts in question.

11.              On the other hand OP-1 has not denied of receiving the payment from OP-2 to OP-4 with respect to the installation of the lifts.  The OP-1 contended that the said lifts could not be installed, only due to the nonpayment of share amounts by some of the members of the respective flats, despite repeated requests and legal notices. In support of his contentions, OP-1 has placed on record Annexure R-1 dated 24.07.2010, the copy of the legal notice written to Sh. Pritam Chand, one of the member, regarding deposit of share amount towards installation of the lifts. Annexure R-2 dated 31.05.2009, is the copy of the letter written to two members of the flats in question to deposit the share of Rs.7,545/-, Rs.4,545/- to one member and Rs.14,545/- to twenty members to deposit their share amount for completion of the lift work and again a letter was issued to the said members vide  Annexure R-3 dated 18.08.2009, whereupon as per OP-1 no heed was paid to it.  It is pertinent to mention that no replication/rejoinder has been filed by the complainants on this fact of OP-1, which shows that OP-2 to OP-4 and complainants have nothing to controvert against the stated fact of OP-1. 

12.              Perusal of the record clearly shows that the OP-1 had been trying his level best to install the remaining lifts for the facility and convenience of the members but it was the few members (25 in no`s) who did not deposit their respective share amount to OP-1 towards installation of the lifts in questions. It has not been controverted by the complainants that the OPs society was being run by contribution of all the members and the society was having no funds of its own. The complainants have not been able to produce a single evidence/proof or any contract between the parties, to prove that the lifts in question were to be installed through OP-1 without payment of  share amount from some members (25 in no`s) of the concerned societies. Therefore, in our view the work of installation of the remaining lifts was withheld only because of non payment of the share amount by the members listed at Annexure R-2, due to which the OP-1 could not release the balance payment to OTIS, New Delhi, who were responsible for installation of the lifts in the said society and for this reason, the OPs cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.

13.              In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the complainants have not been able to produce any evidence against the OPs to hold them liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.  There is no merit in the present case and the same is accordingly dismissed.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.