DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  92

                                                Instituted on:    08.03.2017

                                                Decided on:       05.07.2017

Baljit Singh son of Sh. Joginder Singh, resident of H.No.2082, Magazine Mohalla, Sangrur, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     S.M.D. Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Head Office First Floor on IDBI Bank, Sunami Gate, Sangrur now shifted to SCO No.10, Backside Post Office, PUDA Market, Sangrur, District Sangrur through its Director/Managing Director Sandeep Jindal;

2.     Sandeep Jindal, Director/Managing Director, S.M.D. Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Head Office First Floor on IDBI Bank, Sunami Gate, Sangrur now shifted to SCO No.10, Backside Post Office, PUDA Market, Sangrur, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Amandeep Singh, Advocate.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Baljit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground  that on the assurance of the Ops the complainant purchased a house and paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- out of the total sale price and after receiving the same, the Op promised to get ready the said house upto 10.8.2015 with the facilities like cupboard, dressing room, two double bed, paint, kitchen wooden work, sanitary, electric chimney in kitchen, elevation tiles, water tank, water fitting, toilet seats etc., but the Ops could not complete the construction work upto 10.8.2015, but got registered the sale deed on 10.8.2015 with a promise to complete the said facilities upto 30.8.2015 and for that the Ops executed an agreement and the complainant kept Rs.2,10,000/- pending out of the total sale price.  The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops did not complete the work upto 30.10.2015 and delivered the possession of the house with incomplete work in the month of November, 2015. Further case of the complainant is that he requested the Ops to complete the work and to get an amount of Rs.2,10,000/-, but all in vain. It is further stated that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.11,500/- for seat etc. and the construction is of poor quality and there is leakage. It is further averred that instead of completing the work, the Ops moved an application to Tehsildar, Sangrur and the said application was duly replied. Thus, the complainant has alleged that the OPs have not completed the complete construction of the house as promised. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has prayed that the Ops be directed to complete the work mentioned above and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs by purchasing a house under agreement to sell dated 4.6.2015. However, some work could not be completed and  the registration of sale deed of the house was done on dated 10.8.2015 and an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was due towards the complainant and complainant was delaying the matter of due amount on the basis of lame excuses.  Only work of Rs.68,000/- was due and the Ops are still ready to do the remaining work after receiving the amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. The present complaint has been filed just to defeat the claim of Rs.2,10,000/- of the OPs. It is further stated that the house was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.27,10,000/-.  It is further stated that the Ops also moved an application before the Tehsildar for the remaining payment, but the complainant did not make the payment.  However, any deficiency in service or poor quality of work has been denied.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-33 affidavits and copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-14 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

5.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant had purchased the house in question from the OPs.  It is further not in dispute that the registration sale deed of the house has already been done on 10.8.2015 with some pending work and the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was kept by the complainant in lieu of the work which was to be done by the Ops. Now, we have very carefully perused the complaint, written reply and whole of the evidence produced on the file and are of the considered opinion that the dispute between the complainant and the Ops is that the complainant alleges that the Ops have not completed the construction work as promised and the grievance of the Ops is that the complainant did not pay the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- to the OPs being the remaining amount as agreed between the parties.  We have very carefully perused the agreement dated 4.6.2015, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the Ops are duty bound to complete the various works of the house such as cupboard in bedrooms, complete dressing room, two double bed, whole work of the kitchen, bathrooms and lobby washbasin, all the fittings of water and electricity and whole sanitation work etc.  We have further very carefully perused the complaint as well as evidence, but failed to understand how much work and what kind of construction work remains to be done by the OPs.  Further the complainant has alleged that there is poor construction work done by the Ops of the alleged house, but the complainant has not produced any expert opinion of the architect/engineer to show that the construction work is of poor quality and the Ops have used the inferior quality of the material.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the amount of Rs.68,000/- is required to be spent on the remaining work, whereas the complainant has kept an amount of Rs.2,10,000/-.  But, we feel that the complainant as well as the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that what kind of the construction work has been done and what kind of the construction work remains to be done. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish his case on record.   

6.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        July 5, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

                                                       (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                  Member