Decided on September 21,2006

VEENA JAIN Appellant


- (1.) THROUGH this complaint, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 9,11,820 alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP inas much as that she could not put the shop purchased by her in use because opposite party (hereinafter referred to as OP ) despite assurance did not remove the platform built inside the shop.
(2.) COMPLAINANT is the owner/allottee in possession of the shop bearing Unit No. A -1, Ground Floor, Harbans Bhavan -1, Nangal Rai, New Delhi -45. She had purchased the said shop from the OP vide agreement dated December 27, 1986 executed between the complainant and the OP. At the time of delivering the possession of the shop, the OP had represented and assured the complainant as well as her husband that the platform built and raised by the OP inside the said shop shall be removed and lifted by the OP very soon for providing the light and air to the basement portion under the shop of the complainant. The said platform measures 46" in length, 21" in breadth and 10 " in height. As a result of the existence of this platform, an area measuring 7.00 sq. ft. fell short of the actual area and, therefore, the complainant completely deprived of the use of the said shop. The said platform so constructed is in the form of a rectangular square. Right from the day the said shop had been purchased by the complainant, she could not use the same and is thus lying closed for want of proper area, space in the shop and, therefore, the OP is liable to refund the entire price paid by the complainant with interest @ 24% p.a. and cumulative interest accrued thereupon. The OP is also liable to reimburse the complainant on account of house tax paid by the complainant to the MCD. The complainant also claims the compensation/damages for amount of Rs. 1,00,000. OP had issued a demand notice -cum -letter to re -enter the shop premises dated 13.6.1995 whereby a sum of Rs. 57,152 had been demanded from the complainant. The OP is itself faulty in committing the breach of those clauses as such the OP is not entitled to take advantage of them. The services required to be rendered by the OP have not been rendered. Complainant has also alleged that demand notice dated 13.6.1995 is absolutely unjust, unwarranted and illegal. The OP had received the amounts much more than the cost of the shop mentioned in the Purchase Agreement dated 27.12.1986. Though the OP has mentioned the super area at 114.75 sq. ft., yet the carpet area after deduction of the unauthorisedly raised platform by the OP in the said shop comes to 63.00 sq. ft.
(3.) DETAILS of breaches committed by the OP as alleged by the complainant are as under : (a) No proper repairs and maintenance have been done by the OP in the building. In basement deep water accumulates during rainy reason and no clearance is done by the OP. (b) The lighting provided in the passage is always out of order and it remains generally. (c) There is no water available in toilets nor is any cleaning of toilets done nor is there any availability of drinking water (d) Recently only white -washing of exterior portions has been done and that too with very sub -standard material. (e) The complainant is not aware as to whether the OP has got effected the insurance to the building or not and for that the OP has not furnished the details to the complainant at any time. (f) In underground water reservoir/overhead tanks water is not stored nor is there any cleaning of these reservoirs done till today. As a result of that, huge pungent smell peeps out. (g) No proper repairs to the interior and exterior portion of the building have been carried out by the OP. (h) There is no staff provided by the OP nor any service as defined in Clause 37 of the agreement to sell been provided. (i) No replacement of any fitting, fixtures, chattels is done by the OP. Only old fixtures are provided, which have gone out of order. (j) General maintenance/services provided in the building are totally poor and absolutely dissatisfactory. (k) Separate electric meter provided by the complainant whereas it was OP s duty to have provided the same and for that the minimum charges bill raised is paid by the complainant independently. Op, while denying the allegations of deficiency in service averred that the Op having delivered the possession of the shop as early as on 19.1.1988 there was nothing to fulfil any other term under the contract. That the complaint is even otherwise hopelessly barred by limitation as the complainant kept silence for a period of more than 8 years and has filed the complaint after utilizing the shop for commercial purposes, the amount of compensation has been deliberately jacked up to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of the Commission.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.