DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.483/2013

Sh. Y. S. Srivastava                                                                                                                                 SENIOR CITIZEN                          C-17, Press Enclave, Saket                                                                                                                           (77 years old)

 New Delhi-110017                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

The Press Association Cooperative

Group Housing Society  (PACGHS)

E-16, Press Enclave, Press Enclave Road,

New Delhi-110017                                                    ……Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          : 23.09.13                                                        Date of Order        : 04.10.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member           

O R D E R

At the outset, we must say that the complaint is quite vague in all material aspects.   

The main prayer of the Complainant seems to be that he had submitted the bill for Rs.11490/- on 05.12.12 requesting the OP to reimburse the same within a reasonable time but despite expiry of about 9 months the OP did not bother to response. The bill was submitted on account of replacement of Indian type WC (toilet) with a new WC and making it functional by the Complainant himself in his flat in the OP society.

OP inter-alia has stated that the Complainant was residing at the ground floor i.e. C-17 Press Enclave in Saket whereby in the year 1977-78 the Complainant had rented out his apartment for 6 years and for last 34 years the Complainant has been in possession of the said flat. The Complainant did not make any complaint about the concerned fault, if any, during the period when he had obtained possession. The tenant also did not make any complaint about the toilet being non-functional. The bill submitted by the Complainant nowhere mentioned about any repair of the said toilet on account of original construction fault. The dislocation of the pipes if any could be caused due to various reasons either because of the normal wear and tear over a period of time or due to the conversion of the toilet.  The OP provides no service to the Complainant either at the time of original construction of the toilet pipeline or in the process of change of toilet from Indian to Western and OP is not a service provider to the Complainant regarding the repair of the flat concerned and, hence, repair is the responsibility of the Complainant as the owner and it does not fall within the scope of activities undertaken by the OP. The Complainant himself was a member of the maintenance committee of the society from April 1991 to October 1994 and at that time he had not raised any issue regarding non-functional of the toilet.  The OP’s management committee was constrained to file a suit for damages and defamation against the Complainant which is pending before the District Court, Saket and suit for permanent injunction restraining the Complainant from publishing any defamatory remarks against the OP. OP is not liable to pay for such illegal and unjustified demand. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Ms. Gulshan Mehra, Secretary has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have  also gone through  the file very carefully.

In this case, the Complainant was allotted a house in the year 1977-78 by the OP. The Complainant filed this complaint on 23.09.13 i.e. after 37 years. At the time of allotment of the flat the Complainant had not raised any issue and he had also rented out the house for more than six years but no tenant had raised any issue. The main prayer of the Complainant is that he had submitted the bill for Rs.11490/- on 05.12.12 requesting the OP to reimburse the same within a reasonable time on account of fact stated hereinabove. The complaint of the Complainant is vague and not specific. The Complainant raised this issue after 37 years of allotment/possession of the flat. Hence, he is not a consumer and, therefore, the complaint filed by the Complainant is without any merit. Accordingly, we 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   04.10.2016.