BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No. 44 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:         04.02.2015

                                                    Date of Decision:           30.09.2015

Onkar Singh son of Dalip Singh resident of Flat No.205, Nirwana Green 1 Kharar, District Mohali.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Vision India Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. Officer No.1, Shiva Enclave Chandigarh Road Road, Kharar, Greater Mohali, District SAS Nagar Mohali.

2.     Jangjit Singh, Flat No.305, Nirwana Green, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Kamal Saini, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Gaurav Sharma, counsel for OP No.1.

                Shri Surinder Kumar, counsel for OP No.2

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following directions to the OPs to:

(a)    to pay him Rs.5,00,000/- as damages and Rs.12,000/-  P.M. from December, 2013 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum till realisation

(b)    pay him Rs.1.00 lac for harassment.

(c)    pay him Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

                The case of the complainant is that Flat No.205 comprising two bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom having total area of 1230 sq. ft. at a price of Rs.13,20,000/- was booked and agreement to this effect was executed between the complainant and OP No.1.  After that sale deed was executed by OP No.1 in favour of the complainant on 27.06.2013 at the office of Sub Registrar, Kharar vide vasika No.2212. Possession of the flat was given to the complainant on the same day.  Due to blockage of water, the flat of the complainant has been fully damaged i.e. walls of flat, kitchen fitting cupboard, cupboard of bedroom, flooring tiles and toilet, while wash and painting, wooden articles chair, table, bed etc. CS plaster of walls, Galicha etc. were damaged. The complainant requested the OP No.1 vide application dated 23.12.2013 followed by reminders dated 28.10.2014 and 05.03.2014 to effect repairs but no action was taken by OP No.1.  The complainant also requested OP No.2  but it also did not take any action.  OP No.1 vide letter dated 10.03.2014 threatened the complainant to file defamation case against him and directed the complainant to pay the costs of damages. OP No.2 vide letter dated 24.03.2014 informed the complainant that due to improper installation of sanitary fittings and substandard material used by OP No.1 the problem has occurred. Due to damage of the flat, the complainant is residing with his family on rent by paying a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- from December, 2013 onwards.  The complainant got estimation of the loss which came to Rs.5.00 lacs approximately which is due to the substandard used by the OPs. The complainant sent a notice dated 26.05.2014 to the OPs but only OP No.2 has given a vague reply to the notice. With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OPs.  In its written statement, OP No.1 has taken the preliminary objections that the flat was allotted in the name of Onkar Singh and Mrs. Paramjit Kaur to the extent of 50% each and Ms. Paramjit Kaur has not been impleaded as complainant. Therefore, the complaint is bad for non joinder of Paramjit Kaur. The complainant has already taken over possession of the flat and as per clauses of the agreement, the maintenance of the flat shall be the exclusive responsibility of the allottee from the date of possession.  Inspite of this, OP No.1 got rectified the blockage problem once at its own cost.  The assessment of the loss of Rs.5.00 lacs is without any proof.  On merits, it has denied the allegations of the complainant and sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.2 in its reply has pleaded that it is not concerned with any kind of blockage in the flat of the complainant.  In fact he himself found various defects in his flat and pointed out these to the notice of OP No.1 several times and also vide collective representations of the respondents but till date nothing has been done by OP No.1.  It has admitted sending of letter dated 24.03.2014 to the complainant.  The seepage was due to inferior quality of material used which led damage to the flat of the complainant.  Denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to C-14.

5.             Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Sumit Goyal, its MD Ex.OP-1/1 and documents Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/4.

6.             Evidence of OP No.2 consists of affidavit of Jangjit Singh Ex.OP-2/1 and documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/6.

7.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by them.

8.             The purchase of flat No.205, First Floor, Nirwana Greens, Kanpur by the complainant from the OP No.1 is not disputed as is evident from the duly executed sale deed dated 19.06.2013 Ex.C-10/Ex.OP-1/1.  After the execution of sale deed the complainant has gave his affidavit showing his satisfaction regarding the construction, building plan, finishing, electricity, water, roads, sewerage etc. as per Ex.OP-1/3.  However, upon occupation the complainant found some latent defects like blockage of sewerage and drain pipes causing seepage leading to damage to his property. As per the complainant, sale of flat by the OP No.1 is governed by PAPRA Act and as per Clause 11 (2) if any defect in the building or material used or if any unauthorized change in the construction is brought to the notice of the builder within a period of two years from the date of handing over the possession, it shall wherever be rectified by the promoter without further charge to the person who has agreed to take the apartments or even pay reasonable compensation for such defects or change.  The complainant has brought to the notice of the OP No.1 the defects in the construction material and defects in the laying of pipe lines causing blockage of the sewerage/drain system of the flat, leading to seepage, dampness and damage to his fixtures, furniture and property. The OP No.1 in its communication dated 10.03.2014 addressed to the complainant vide Ex.OP-1/4 has admitted the problem of blockage in the flat of the complainant and further admitted having rectified the same as goodwill gesture but shifted the onus of blockage to the flat No.305 i.e. the flat of OP No.2 and asked the complainant to take up the matter with OP No.2. The problem still persisted and neither OP No.2 nor OP No.1 has addressed the issue leading to the present consumer dispute. OP No.2 i.e. owner of flat No.305 which is situated above the flat of the complainant has denied any consumer relationship with the complainant in its reply though he has admitted the blockage problem of his floor and as per OP No.2 the same is due defective construction and lay out of the pipe line for which the builder is responsible to provide solution to the same.

9.             The issue involved in the present complaint is whether the OP No.1 has failed to provide after sale service to the complainant as per provisions of the PAPRA Act governing the buyer-seller relationship of the flat in question and if so whether the complainant is entitled to compensation.

10.           It is admitted fact that the complainant is in possession of the flat in question since 19.06.2013. Further it is admitted that upon possession the complainant has brought to the notice of the OP No.1 the problem of blockage of water and OP No.1 has admitted having rectified the problem without any charge. As per the complainant the problem still persists and causing damage to his property. Onus was on the OP No.1 to show the rectification of the problem of blockage in the flat of the complainant. No such document has come on record to prove the stand of the OP No.1 in this regard. The complainant on the other hand has proved the photographs Ex.C-14 (colly) duly supported by his affidavit to show the amount of damage caused to his property, furniture and fixture etc. due to seepage, leakage and blockage in the pipes of the flat of the complainant.  There is no rebuttal evidence from the side of OP No.1. Thus, it is ample clear that the complainant’s grievances of defects in the flat have not been removed by the OP No.1 and the act of OP No.1 is in contravention to the provisions of Section 11 of PAPRA Act.  However, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. Thus the complainant deserves to be allowed against OP No.1 and the complainant deserves to be compensated reasonably and not as claimed by him qua the rent paid by him due to availing the rental accommodation in the event when he was deprived of the use and benefit of the property due to leakage and other defects having not been rectified by the OPs. The complainant has not produced any rent receipt to show the rent having paid by him. Therefore, on this account he is not entitled to any compensation.

11.           The complaint is hereby allowed against OP No.1. OP No.1 is directed to:

(a)    to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only)  for removal of defects in the sewerage system and blockage which the OP No.1 has failed to do.

(b)   to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for damage to the property of the complainant.

(c)   to pay to the complainant lump Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

September 30, 2015.    

                        (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member