District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.144/2022.

 Date of Institution: 09.03.2022.

Date of Order: 29.07.2022.

1.                Bhupender Singh son of Shri Jaswant Singh.

2.                Smt. Soniya Rani wife of Shri Bhupender Singh

Both residents of House No.224, Block A, Sector-7A, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainants……..

                                                Versus

1.                Smt. Manju Bala wife of Shri Krishan Malhotra, resident of House No. 2111, Sector-7D, Faridabad.

2                 Jawahar Lal Kathuria, resident of Trumph 407, Omaxe New Height, sector-78, Faridabad.

3.                Smt. Saroj Kumari wife of late Shri oti Lal Kathuria, resident of Trumph 407, Omaxe New Height, Sector-78, Faridabad.

4.                Vinod Kumar Guglani son of late Shri Satpal Guglani, resident of House No. 1857, Sector-9, Faridabad (Builder).

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh. Chandan Singh ,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Opposite party No.1 ex-parte vide order dated 17.05.2022.

                             Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 exparte vide order dated 07.07.2022.

                             Opposite party No.4 given up on dated 07.07.2022.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that  opposite party No.1 being the owner and in possession of plot/house/flat NO.224, Block A, Sector-7A, Faridabad measuring 215.99 sq. meter vide sale deed document No. 8557 dated 17.12.2018 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Ballabgarh.  On the basis of the ownership rights the opposite party No.1 had made four flats with stilt park parking in respect of the above said plot/house NO. 224, Block-a, Sec.7, Faridabad with the opposite partiesNos.2,3 & 4 by way of entered into an collaboration agreement on dated 18.5.2019.  At the time of construction of the above said house/flat, the complainants had purchased the second floor portion from the opposite party No.1 in respect of the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement to sell on dated 4.6.2019 in the presence of the opposite parties Nos.2 & 4 and who put their signature on the said agreement as a witness. Opposite party No.1had executed the sale deed document in favour of the complainants and the complainants were in  possession of the second floor portion and using of the above said second floor portion without  any interruption.  The opposite parties assured the complainants, at the time of agreement to sell that all the work in respect of the flat, i.e painting work, sanitary work, wood work, electrical works, lift work, flooring work, POP work, fabrication work etc. would be in superior quality and price range of the above said goods were also decided.  After execution of the sale deed the complainants enter in the flat in question then the complainants found that there were many defect in the services the details of defect in service  were as under:-

i)                 Lift is not working properly, because lift was not installed as per the Haryana Lift and escalators Act, 2008.

ii)                Many electrical switch boards were not functioning properly.

iii)               Wall cracks had developed with the area of windows and doors.

iv)               Seepage had been started thereon.

v)                Grouting of tiles had not been done properly  starting removing.

vi)               The front elevations area tiles fell down which could case death any person.

vii)              The possession of the flat was delay in respect of the flat in question.

The opposite parties intentionally and knowingly did not handover the bills etc. to the complainants, because the opposite parties played fraud with the complainants by using inferior quality of the material in construction and in this regard the complainants many times requested to the opposite parties to handover the bill and sort out the defect in the service but no result came out, ultimately the complainants had moved an application to the commissioner of police, sect,21-C, Faridabad on 18.10.2021 and on the basis of the said complaint, the opposite parties was called in the police station, Sector-7, Faridabad and in the police station, sec. 7, Faridabad the opposite parties assured to the complainant that all the work would be completed upto 15.11.2021.   later on the complainants had moved an application to the Commissioner of Police, sEc.21C, Faridabad for taking the legal action against the opposite party and on the basis of the said complaint the police official made the telephonic call to the opposite parties and the opposite parties came in the police station and given the assures to the complainants that all the work would e completed till 28..02.2022.  The complainants several times requested to the opposite parties to handover the original bills as well as sort out the problems of the defect in the services.  The complainant sent a legal notice dated 8.6.2021 through registered A.D post to opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                sort out the problems of the defect in the service pertaining to all the work in the flat in question.

b)                handover the original bills pertaining to all the work in the flat of the deponent.

 c)                pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

d)                 pay Rs. 40,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice issued to opposite party No.1 received back with the report of “Refusal”.  Case called several times since morning. But none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. More than one month had elapsed.  Therefore, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.5.2022.

3.                Notice issued to opposite parties Nos.2 &3 not received back either served or unserved.  Case called several times since morning. But none appeared on behalf of opposite arties Ns.2 & 3. More than one month had elapsed.  Therefore, opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 07.07.2022.

4.                Shri Bhupender Singh, complainant has made a statement that he gives up opposite party No.4 Vinod Kumar Guglani son of late Shri Satpal Guglani being unnecessary.  Accordingly, opposite party No.4 was given up  vide order dated 07.07.2022.

5.                The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.

6                  We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.

7.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – Manju Bala & ors.. with the prayer to: a)  sort out the problems of the defect in the service pertaining to all the work in the flat in question. b) handover the original bills pertaining to all the work in the flat of the deponent. c)  pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment d) pay Rs. 40,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case, the complainant  has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of  Shri Bhupender Singh, Ex.C-1 – Agreement, Ex.C-2 – Sale Deed, Ex.C-3 – letter written by the complainant to police,, Ex.C-4 – letter written  by the complainant to Chowki Incharge, Ex.C-5 – legal notice, Ex.C-6 – postal receipt, Ex.C-7 & 8 – Envelops, Ex.C-9 – postal receipt, Ex.C-10 to 14 – track consignment, Ex.C-15 -   returned letter, Ex.C-16 to C-34 – photographs, Ex.C35  - letter written by  RTI to Shri Bhupender Singh, Ex.C-37 – certificate u/s 56B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.C-38  & 39 – returned letters, Ex.C-40 – Adhaar card of Bhupender Singh, Ex.C-44 – Adhaar card of Soni Rani.

 8.               There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite parties Nos.1, 2 & 3 have rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite parties Nos.1 , 2 & 3.

9.                Opposite parties Nos.1, 2 & 3 jointly & severally, are directed to :

a)                sort out the problems of the defect in the service pertaining to all the work in the flat in question.

b)                handover the original bills pertaining to all the work in the flat of the deponent.

 c)                pay Rs.5500/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

d)                 pay Rs. 5500 /-as litigation expenses.

Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on: 29.07.2022.                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                       Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.