Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/73

Jagtar Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

White City Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gurpreet Singh,Adv

11 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 73 of 10.06.2014

                               Date of decision                 : 11.05.2015

 

Jagtar Kaur, wife of S. Avtar Singh, resident of House No.15, Gobind Valley, Ropar.

                                                                                ......Complainant

                                             Versus

White City Real Estate Private Limited, Near BSNL Exchange, Navi Abadi, Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

                                                                               ....Opposite Party

 

                                        Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SH.V.K. KHANNA, MEMBER

SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh.Dipanjot Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant

Sh. V.K. Soni Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Party

 

 

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Smt. Jagtar Kaur has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’ only) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To repair the flat upto her satisfaction and give guarantee that the cracks in the flat will not develop again,

ii)      To refund the rent amount, which she is paying @ Rs.2500/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2014 onwards,

iii)     To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages/compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to her by the O.P.,

iv)     To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses,

v)      To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit, in the facts & circumstances of the case.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that she had purchased a flat No.5, in Ward No.5, Mohalla Bari Sarkaar, Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, by paying a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- from the O.P., who had handed over the possession of the same to her on 15.10.2012, but  on 01.01.2014, she had vacated the flat in question as the cracks had developed in the walls and it was dangerous to live in the said flat. On 15.10.2012, at the time of sale of the flat in question to her, the O.P. had told that ‘A’ class raw material has been used to construct the said flats and the same have been built on 32 concrete pillars. The load of the all of the flats is on the pillars. The O.P.  had verbally given 20 years guarantee of the said flat. After 3-4 months, the walls of the flat started developing minor cracks. Thereafter, the minor cracks became big cracks and at some places, the cracks were more than 1 inch in width. Due to bigger cracks in the walls, the plaster of the walls also started peeling off. She came to know that the O.P. has not erected a single concrete pillar to bear the load of all the flats.  As it had become dangerous to live in the said flat, she vacated the same and started living in a rented accommodation by paying Rs.2500/- P.M. The owners/occupants of the other flats have also vacated the flats and moved to safer places. The O.P. is, thus, deficient in rendering service and has adopted unfair trade practice, as it had given guarantee of the flat for 20 years, but the same developed cracks within a short span of 1-1/2 year. Hence, this complaint. 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, on the application bearing MA No. 24 dated 17.4.2015 as well as on merit of the complaint case and gone through the record of the file, including written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, carefully.

 

6.                In the application, bearing MA No. 24 dated 17.4.2015, the O.P. has taken the objection that the complainant has not produced the copy of agreement from both sides, therefore, she be directed to produce the backside of the rent agreement dated 10.1.2014.  In reply to the said application, the complainant has shown her inability to produce the same, therefore, no useful purpose will be served, if we direct the complainant to produce the same, therefore, the application is dismissed, having become infructuous.

 

7.                On merits of the complaint case, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on 15.10.2012, the complainant had purchased the flat in question for a sum of Rs.7,25,000/-. After sometimes of its purchase, cracks developed in it, because the O.P. had used the substandard material while constructing the same. She felt dangerous to live therein, therefore, vacated the same & started living in a rented accommodation w.e.f. 1.1.2014 by paying monthly of Rs.2500/- and w.e.f. January, 2015 onwards, she has been paying the rent @ Rs.2600/- per month as is evident from the copies of rent deeds, placed on record . At the time of selling the said flat, the O.P. told her that the flats have been built on 32 concrete pillars, but after taking its possession, it came to her knowledge that no concrete pillar has been erected to bear the load of the entire building. Even the repair work done by the O.P., after developing of the cracks, was just an eye-wash, the same is evident from the photographs, Ex. C16 to C26 clicked on 13.9.2014, therefore, the the O.P. be directed to repair the flat upto to her satisfaction and give guarantee that the cracks will not develop again and it be also directed to refund the rent amount, which she has been paying w.e.f. 1.1.2014 onwards and also to pay compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment, suffered by her, alongwith litigation expenses.

 

8.                In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the O.P. fairly admitted the factum of sale of flat in question to the complainant by the O.P., but submitted that the said flat was sold for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- and not for a sum of Rs.7,25,000/-, as alleged by the complainant, as is evident from the agreement to sell, Ex. C15. He submitted that the O.P. had never told the complainant that the flats have been built on 32 concrete pillars, as alleged by her. It is true that some cracks developed in the flats constructed by the O.P. including the flat of the complainant, and immediately, when the said fact came to its notice, the requisite repair work was done. The allegation of the complainant that the repair work has not been done properly by the O.P. is, thus, baseless. Even as a goodwill gesture, the O.P. had even given offer to the flat owners to resell the flats to the O.P. on the same price, on which, they had bought the same. The complainant had accepted the said offer and had also received a sum of Rs.3.50,000/-, which was transferred to her account on 7.2.2014 maintained with HDFC Bank, Branch Anandpur Sahib from the account of the O.P., as is evident from the copy of statement of account, Ex. OP-2. The complainant has, thus, no locus standi to file the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.        

 

9.                At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the stand of the O.P. is that since the complainant had agreed to resell the flat in question to it for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-, a sum of  Rs.3,50,000/-, as a part payment of sale consideration, has already been received by her on 7.2.2014, gets falsified because the debit entry made on 7.2.2014, in the statement of account, Ex.OP-2., for a sum of  Rs.3,50,000/-, relates to Avtar Singh and not to the complainant. Therefore, this objection raised by the O.P. is baseless and cannot be taken into consideration.

          From the agreement to sell, Ex. C15, it is evident that the price of the flat situated at the ground floor was Rs.6,50,000/-. The complainant had purchased the flat No. 5 at the ground floor. The plea of the complainant that she had purchased the flat in question for a sum of Rs.7,25,000/-, but in support the said plea, no document has been placed on record by her, in the absence thereof, it cannot be said that the cost of flat was Rs.7,25,000/-, as alleged by her. To prove the fact that no pillar has been erected while constructing the flats in question, no document has been produced on record by the complainant, thus, this contention of the complainant is also not tenable. In support of this contention that the repair work has not been done properly by the O.P., the complainant has placed on record the photographs dated 13.9.2014, Ex. C16 to Ex. C26 and in order to prove this fact that she is living in a rented accommodation, she has placed on record rent deeds, dated 10.1.2014 and 19.1.2015 Ex. C27 & C28 respectively, executed with one S. Kabul Singh. From the photographs, Ex. C16 to Ex. C26, it is apparent that the repair work does not appear to have been done properly by the O.P., which tantamount to deficiency in service on its part and it is liable to do the necessary repair work properly. Since the O.P. had not done the repair work properly, therefore, the complainant was forced to live in a rented accommodation and to bear extra financial burden. Even the O.P. has not specifically denied the fact that the complainant had left the flat and has been living in a rented accommodation. From the rent deed dated 19.1.2015, Ex. C28, it is proved that the complainant has been living in a rented accommodation by paying a sum of Rs.2600/- per month w.e.f. 6.1.2015 till date. However, the rent deed dated 10.1.2014, Ex. C27, produced on record by her, does not bear necessary endorsement on its back, therefore, it being incomplete document, no reliance can be placed on the same. In these peculiar circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if a lump-sum amount of Rs.40,000/- be awarded to the complainant towards financial loss, on account of payment of rent amount, as well as mental agony & physical harassment suffered by her, in addition to payment of litigation expenses.

 

10.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the O.P. in the following manner:-

i)   To do the necessary repairs of the flat in question of the complainant,

ii)  To pay Rs.40000/- as compensation,

iii) To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The O.P. is further directed to comply with the above said directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 11.05.2015                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                   

(SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.