State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Sandeep Developers vs Johnson Lift Pvt Ltd on 29 July, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Complaint Case No. C/2012/80 ( Date of Filing : 12 Jul 2012 ) 1. M/s Sandeep Developers a ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Johnson Lift Pvt Ltd a ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 29 Jul 2024 Final Order / Judgement Reserved State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow. Complaint Case No. 80 of 2012 M/s Sandeep Developers, 1- Naval Kishor Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow through its Partner Sri Krishna. ...Complainant. Versus 1- Johnson Lifts Pvt. Limited, 2/258, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow through its Branch Manager. 2- Head, Operations, Johnson Lifts Pvt. Limited, E-76, Sector, 63, Noida. ..Opp. Parties. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member. Sri Vikas Agarwal, Advocate for complainant. Sri Dheerendra Yadav, Advocate for opposite parties. Date: 12 .08.2024 JUDGMENT
Per Sri Rajendra Singh, Member- This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party.
The brief facts of the complaint case are that, that the complainant is partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1958 and a reputed builder of Lucknow city who constructed a ten storied residential building as per the approved/sanctioned map of the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. It consist of 82 flats in the name and style of 'Kalyan (Garden View)' on plot no.24/CP-101, Ring Road, Indira Nagar, Lucknow.
The opposite parties are involved in manufacturing and marketing the lifts and on 30.1.2011, 31.1.2011 & 10.2.2011 the opposite parties had given offer/quotation for supply, installation testing and commissioning of One Number Passenger Lift for the building project 'Kalyan (Garden View)' on plot no.24/CP-101, Ring Road, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. After negotiation the final cost of the said lift was settled at Rs.10,50,000.00 and thereafter, on 28.3.2011 the complainant placed an order to the opposite parties vide letter no.SD/2011/G-60/110 alongwith cheque of Rs.1,05,000.00 only i.e. 10% of the entire cost of the lift which was received by the representative of the opposite parties Sri J.B. Mukherjee on 2.4.2011.
As per offer, the delivery of the lift including erection and commissioning thereof was to be completed and handed over to the complainant in perfect running condition within four months from the date of order i.e. from 28.3.2011, as such the lift was to be delivered on or before 28.7.2011 complete in all respect. The complainant paid Rs.1,05,000.00 on 30.3.2011 and Rs.2,10,000.00 on 14.7.2011 and Rs.5,25,000.00 on 27.8.2011 as such the complainant paid to the opposite parties a sum of Rs.8,40,000.00 against the total cost of Rs.10,50,000.00.
After as lapse of more than five months the opposite parties handed over the said lift on 14.1.2012 as per handing over certificate the warranty period of the said lift is form 14.01.2012 to 13.1.2013 i.e. for one year. After the delivery of the said lift, within short period of 20 days three consecutive failure of the said lift occurred, two times the said lift jammed on 8th and 9th floor land third time on 1.2.2012 when a visitor namely Sri Pradeep Mishra of Unit no.803 of 'Kalyan' (Garden View) who is a heart patient got stuck up inside the Lift between 3rd & 4th Floor and suddenly the said Lift failed and neither the doors opened nor the Lift was moving up or down and all his efforts for operating Emergency Siren also failed and the said person remained stuck up inside the Lift for about 45 minutes and the life of that person was saved after breaking the doors of the said lift and thereafter on 29.05.2012 the resident of Flat No.310 of the said Apartment also stuck up inside the Lift for about 30 minutes and after rescue of his life he was hospatlised. The aggrived persons gave their complaints in writing to the Complainant and lodged their protest for replacement of the defective Lift.
The resident of the 'Kalyan' (Garden View) after these incidents are having a great fear in their mind and they are not using the said defective Lift rather they are using the staires and the other Lift of the other company in the said building and they are also making huge pressure for replacement of the defective Lift which was also reported to the Opposite Parties by the complainant but the Opposite Parties neither paid any heed for rectifying the defects nor replaced the defective Lift as such the complainant gave a Legal Notice dated 15.02.2012 to the Opposite Parties. In the Notice the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties, either to replace the said defective Lift or refund the amount paid to them against the said Lift which is defective, by which the Complainant may arrange another defect free Lift, so that such incidents do not occur in future and the life of the residents of the 'Kalyan' (Garden View) or any other person may not come in danger but the Opposite Parties neither replaced the defective Lift nor refunded the amount.
The residents of the 'Kalyan' (Garden View) making huge pressure upon the Complainant for replacement of the defective Lift but the Opposite Parties did not give any response and after the incidence of 29.05.2012 the Complainant also gave an application to the Police authorities.
The said Lift was installed by the Complainant in the ten storied residential building for the use and benefit of the residents of the said building and not for inviting any accident. From the very beginning of the operation of the said defective Lift many accidents took place and many a times old aged persons stuck up and confined in the Lift but despite several requests till date the Opposite Parties are not replacing the said defective Lift. Since the installation, the said Lift is not working satisfactorily and now the said Lift is out of order and the Complainant is under pressure of the residents of the building for getting the Lift operational while as per the terms and conditions of the Guarantee/Warranty for One year from the date of handing over the Lift the said Lift was handed over to the complainant on 14.01.2012 as such the said Lift is well within time of Guarantee/Warranty provided by the Opposite Parties. Further as per the terms and conditions of the Guarantee/Warranty the liability of periodical services of the Lift for the first 12 months will be carried out by the Opposite Parties free of cost but the Opposite Parties are violating the said terms and conditions and despite several requests neither rectified the inherent defects nor replaced it which comes under the deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties.
The goods purchased by the complainant are neither meant for commercial purposes nor for the purposes of resale and the complainant is not involved in the business of sale and purchase of the lifts. Due to installation of the defective lift of the opposite parties, the reputation and goodwill of the complainant has been badly affected. Now, for non-availability of a good working lift in a ten storied building the prospective buyers of the flats of 'Kalyan' refused to purchase flats in the building and the market value of the flats also deteriorated for which the opposite parties are responsible and liable to compensate the financial loss.
The opposite parties have committed serious deficiency in services and they are accountable for unfair trade practice. The complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled for the following reliefs:
1- Direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.8,40,000.00 (Rupees Eight Lac Forty Thousand Only) to the complainant along with interest @24% with effect from the respective dates of payment.
2- Direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000.00 (Rupees Thirty Lac Only) on account of delayed delivery of the Lift as well as damages for committing gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
3- Direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Lac Only) as compensation for financial losses and the loss of reputation and good will in the market.
4- Allow the complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards cost of the case.
5- Any other order which this Hon'ble State Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.
The opposite parties filed their written statement in which they have stated that the complainant has filed the present complaint with mala-fide intention for extraneous consideration. The complainant who is a builder was having a lot of disputes in their apartments with their flat owners due to the reason that the complainant firm is in habit of not providing the services as he promised to its customers.
In the present case, the lift has been installed in a ten storied building just to lure the customers but ARD device has not been installed which provide uninterrupted power supply to the lift. Although a cheque of 10% was given on 30.3.2011 which was received on 21.4.2011 but the complainant requested not to present this cheque without his prior confirmation, so the complainant confirmed, the opposite parties on 30.4.2011 to present the said cheque in the bank.
The opposite parties have given a tentative time to the complainant which was subject to the payment of 10% advance money and before receiving the advance money, the opposite parties could not start the erection process and the advance money was actually received on the date when the cheque was presented before its bankers. The process of installation of the lift was also subject to the availability of proper feasibility for installation of lift which includes proper power supply and required space to be provided by the builder which was not provided by the complainant in time.
The complainant had given first cheque on 30.2.2011 which was presented on 30.4.2011, hence, the advance money was paid on 30.4.2011. The lapse in installation and handing over the lift to the complainant was not on the part of the opposite parties but the same has been cause due to slackness of the complainant itself.
It is submitted that before installation of the lift at the place of a builder, the builder has to provide certain technical facilities to the company who installs the lift, as per the GAD plan which is provided by the lift installation company. In the present case the opposite parties had furnished the GAD plan which was to be approved by the complainant. The complainant had approved the GAD (General Arrangement Drawing) plant on 11.7.2011 wherein there were so many defect and deficiencies which were reported by the opposite parties to the complainant vide its letter dated 14.7.2011. In spite of providing the list of works to be done from the complainant's end. The complainant had not rectified the said deficiencies on the part far with the complainant also submitted its erection site visit report and which number of deficiencies were found, few of which are like lift shaft was not completed as per the approved GAD, override, clear pit and outside electricity cables running in the lift shaft and machine room height was not as per GAD, lift wall thickness was also not as per the approved GAD.
The lift was not ordered with ARD (Auto Rescue Device) fitting, hence when the electricity fails, the lift stops at the place where it was. The opposite parties always provided services to the complainant as and when reported to them. The opposite parties have duly replied the legal notice given by the complainant.
It is submitted that after completion of erection of lift, the opposite parties conducted trial run for 24 hours on the said lift before handing over the same to the complainant and there was no defect in the said lift and in the present time also there is no defect in it. The sudden incident which are mentioned were due to sudden power failure and non-installation of the ARD.
The opposite parties are continuously providing the services free of cost as was promised by the opposite parties before installation of the lift. The opposite parties have supplied lift in proper working condition.
It is relevant to mentioned here that when the service engineer of the opposite parties had attended the call backs, it was found that the lift was not operational only because of power failure.
The opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and they always provided the best ever service to the complainant, but as the complainant having shrewd mentality and do not want to pay final payment of the said lift, hence, he failed the present case. The present case is not maintainable. The breakdown in the lift were caused due to sudden power failure and non-availability of ARD device. The opposite parties had inspected the lift on each of the occasion of breakdown and found lift in working condition. Whenever the lift stops due to power failure, the lift operator must be present to rescue the passengers trapped inside the lift car but the complainant failed to appoint a lift operator, as a result of which they were not able to rescue the passengers in an orderly manner and for the same the opposite parties cannot be held responsible.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant Sri Vikas Agarwal and ld. counsel for the opposite parties Sri Dheerendra Yadav. We have perused the pleadings, evidences and documents on record.
The main contention of the opposite party is that, that the complainant did not install the ARD (Auto Recue Device) which was most important. We have seen the different quotation and also the report of the opposite party company which is scanned herein below for ready reference.
If ARD was so necessary, why did the opposite party not mention this fact in his estimate or quotation. It should have been mentioned that this device is very important otherwise there may be frequent breakdown of the lift. There is no record to show that what was the price of ARD installation. We did not see any such document. It has been in the written statement but never any proposal or any warning has been issued by the opposite party to the complainant regarding non-installation of ARD. As we have seen the scanned document, there is nothing to show that any time or at any place the complainant has been advised to install the ARD. If ARD was so necessary, it should have been mentioned in the estimate of the company In this lift specifications sent to M/S Sandeep Developers , dated 31.01.2011 , it has been specifically printed against type of control system, - Microprocessor-Based Simplex Selective Collective Control With/Without Attendant.
We have seen the breakdown report submitted by the opposite party but in that report there is no mention of any ARD. So many places, it has been said that this is due to power failure but there is nothing on record to show that this apartment has no backup facility. If there is backup facility, in case of power breakdown, the generator automatically starts or manually started by the technicians within 2-3 minutes of electricity breakdown. So that, no body can be stuck in the lift. We have also seen the complaint of one or two persons in which they were stuck in the lift.
Now we come to the quality of Johnson lifts in India. From the Website, it is clear that in the list of best lifts Johnson comes at position number 6 which means that its reputation is not so good as they claimed.
List of Top 10 Elevator Companies in India Here are the top 10 elevator manufacturing companies in India, in no particular order:
Epic Elevators Pvt. Ltd.
KONE Elevator India Private Limited Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited ThyssenKrupp Elevator (India) Private Limited Schindler India Private Limited Johnson Lifts Private Limited Mitsubishi Electric India Private Limited Hitachi Lift India Private Limited Fujitec India Private Limited Omega Elevators Private Limited We have come across some Johnson lift mishap and we would like to narrate this mishap which we get from the Website.
Johnsons Lifts Pvt Ltd I am disappointed Mar 31, 2023 11:19 AM 1196 Views Shrihari Sharma , Gurgaon , Haryana has said I recently purchased a lift from Johnson's Lifts Pvt. Ltd and it has been a terrible experience. The customer service I received was appalling and the after-sales service was non-existent.
The sales staff were very pushy and tried to rush me into making a decision before I had fully considered all of my options. They were also unhelpful when I had questions about the product and did not take the time to explain the features and benefits of the lift.
When I received the lift it was damaged and did not work properly. I contacted Johnson's Lifts Pvt. Ltd and they informed me that they could not do anything to resolve the issue. I was left with no other options but to take the lift back to them and wait for a replacement.
When I contacted customer service I was met with a wall of apathy. They did not provide any helpful advice and instead simply told me to wait for a replacement. I waited for over a month and still have not received a replacement.
The quality of the lift was also poor. There were several design flaws which caused it to malfunction regularly. The customer service team was also unable to provide any assistance in resolving this issue.
Overall, I would not recommened to anyone.
Other Reviews On Johnsons Lifts Pvt Ltd Anonymous Very bad product and service. Do not purchase this Jul 06, 2024 11:10 AM 130 Views (via Mobile) Very bad service and product i have never seen this type of product in life. Very very very bad. Do not purchase this Johnson lift. Even they sale in less price also The worst ever lifts and service Jun 20, 2024 05:44 PM 176 Views I placed an order for my apartments at Adambakkam with Johnson lifts, their policy is to take 100% advance and never bother to install on time. the quality of engineers they send for installation is very junior and most often never turn up at site. they never will deliver on time and extremely poor workmanship. Never go with this organization for lifts in chennai.
Poor service Mar 26, 2024 10:06 PM 327 Views (via Mobile) Sir my lift no is LF8797, Sir we are paying 82000 for yearly maintenance, sir you lift service is very very poor service person are not trained last four month no service but lift is working very good and before 3 weeks service person done service and the problem is starting every day every time lift have big problem no working many times i push button for 3rd floor lift stop at 2nd floor but screen show 3rd floor but service manager not solve the problem same problem we face before 6 month that time service manager tell card not working 2 days lift stop and then change card now if card problem please change in time, now one more person we face suddenly lift stop and aero mark down side show today hole day lift not working recently we complaint at 8.30pm but no response my mother and my wife not able to use stairs please tell me what can I do please send some skilled person for resolving hiranyaboruahf Never buy Johnson Lift Nov 04, 2023 05:44 PM 479 Views (via Mobile) Worst experience ??. The service they provided is worst. Since more than 2 months, I m contacting here the Guwahati service center for repair of my Lift. They neither visited nor any communication from them. Finally when I directly contacted through mail to the company website, very next day they visited and done a survey and told me that they will give a quotation for the repair cost. They have given an huge estimate for repairing and also compelling us to do AMC and gave us the condition that they will repair the Lift only after AMC. Moreover some more irrelevant and unethical conditions gave us that the replaced part will be their property, payment should be made 100% in advance, after payment it may take 12 weeks to complete the work, we should sign their acceptance letter etc. Moreover they are locking the Lifts PCB with Password due to which no other service engineer can repair the lift. Overall it's a monopoly and once you have installed Johnson lifts, you hv no other choice and to accept their conditions whatever they gave you. So never ever buy Johnson Lift.
17 December 2017 1:50 AM Hyderabad: Two lift technicians who were repairing a faulty lift at the corporate office of Nagarjuna Construction Company (NCC) in Madhapur, died after the lift fell from the 11th floor of the building while they were on top of it carrying out the repairs. Police has booked a case of accidental death against NCC and Johnson Lifts Private Limited, manufacturer of the lift. The deceased were identified as M. Ramesh Kumar, 23 and G. Nagarju, 28, both working as lift technicians for Johnson Lifts.
The corporate office of NCC is located on the 11th floor of a building in Madhapur constructed around six years ago. Johnson Lifts supplied eight lifts in the building, and was looking after the maintenance. Ramesh, Nagaraju and three helpers from Johnson Lifts started working on the faulty lift on Saturday after receiving a complaint the day before. According to available information, they let the lift stand on the 11th floor. While Ramesh and Nagaraju stood on the lift car and started the repair work, the other three helped from outside. Around 11.30 am, the cables supporting the lift from above snapped and the lift crashed to the ground with great force. Both men standing on the lift car sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Police said that they did not notice any safety equipment at the accident spot. "Prima facie a case of accidental death has been booked against the construction company and the lift firm. Based on the evidence and other clues, further investigation will proceed," said K. Manmadha Rao, SI, Madhapur police station. Based on a complaint from Ramesh's father, a case has been registered. The bodies were sent for autopsy.
( Source : Deccan Chronicle. ) Apr 23, 2017, 02:16 IST Now we can see an article published in times of India on April 23, 2017 in which there is a news " elevator plunges to lower basement from second floor".
A condominium on Sohna Road early Saturday, after a lift fell from the second floor of the high-rise apartment to its basement. Around 2:40 AM on Saturday the residents heard a loud voice in Tower 6 of the condominium's. On enquiring, the residential found out that the towers service lift had plunged to the lower basement of the condominium. The residents also produced photographic evidence of overlapping of roofs that lift the elevators. Thankfully, the lift was not in use at the time of fall. Over 400 families live in nine towers of Central Park-II. There are two lift in each tower - one service lift and 1% lift. There are 15 floors in each tower.
Sakshi Kumaria , who used the lift just five minutes before the fall, said, "me, my husband and our five year old kid were coming back from a family get-together on Friday night. We used the lift from basement II to our apartment on the second floor. After about five minutes I heard a loud sound. I thought that the big chandelier in my living room has come down. However, that was not the case. I checked with my neighbours but could not find anything. After we raised an alarm we found out that the lift had fallen."
Manoj Sharma , general secretary of Residential Welfare Association told TOI "we have registered a police complaint against the lift manufacturer, who was also maintaining the lift. Despite being them such a huge amount for maintenance how can such an incident happen. We want to put concerned officials behind bars for negligence."
A representative from Johnson lifts said, "the RWA has not renewed annual AM after Mark math 31 , 2017. However, we were providing only the breakdown services. We are looking into the matter." Despite calls and messages, General Manager of Johnson lifts remained unavailable for comments. BB Case against Johnson Lifts for Negligence for Lift under AMC 30-Aug-2023 (In Consumer Court Law) A major accident was averted in my Apartments in Indirapuram. We have AMC with Johnson Lifts. Their men are working on the malfunctioning issue of the one of the Lift from past 1-2 Weeks. Lift moved to 7th Floor, but door opened on 6th Floor. Man was already struck in the Lift. My son opened the door and was about to step into the hollow shaft. The men who was struck in the Lift, warned him and by God's grace the accident was averted. Location of Incident : Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Date of Incident : 30th August I also have Witness and Photographs.
Another day, another snag: Six people get stuck as two LDA apartments report lift malfunction in a day By HT Correspondent Jun 13, 2023 06:42 PM IST In the first incident, five people got trapped inside a lift for 15 minutes when the lift in Parijat Apartments in Gomti Nagar stopped working mid-way.
LUCKNOW Despite multiple complaints, technical snags in lifts continue to compromise the safety of residents in high-rise Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) apartments. On Tuesday, the state capital reported lift malfunctions in two LDA buildings including Parijat Apartments and Sargam Apartments.
On Tuesday, the state capital reported lift malfunctions in two LDA buildings. (Screengrab) In the first incident, five people got trapped inside a lift for 15 minutes when the lift in Parijat Apartments in Gomti Nagar stopped working mid-way. Those who got stuck in the lift included three people above 70 years of age and two others above 50 years of age.
"The incident took place around 8 am when the residents were going up. Half-way through the course, the lift stopped working and the people got trapped. Soon, the elderly started feeling breathless. Their condition was getting worse by the minute," said HR Tiwari, a resident in the building.
Finally, after 15 minutes of maneuvering, people trapped inside the lift were rescued by one of the maintenance workers, Jaleel. He somehow opened the lift door," said Samar Vijay Singh, secretary of the Parijat welfare society. Blaming the LDA for such incidents, he added, "A tragedy is just waiting to happen. Such incidents happen due to poor construction and poor maintenance.... There is rampant corruption in the LDA."
In the second such incident reported from Jankipuram on Tuesday, a worker got trapped for 20 minutes in the Sargam Apartments' lift. "In this scorching heat, the man remained inside the lift. Luckily, his phone didn't lose signal. So, he was able to call us. Subsequently, we called the Johnson company operator, who then opened the lift with his key," said Rishi Ranjan Shukla, a resident of the building.
WHAT LDA V-C SAID?
Speaking on the rising incidents lift malfunctions on April 18, LDA vice-chairman Indramani Tripathi had ordered the companies concerned Otis and Johnson to deploy trainee operators in the lifts. His statement came after glitches were reported in the functioning of lifts in LDA buildings like Shristi, Sargam, Smriti, Janeshwar and Parijat Apartments.
So far, only Shristi Apartments has operators for managing lift snags. Other buildings are yet to get lift operators.
Notably, Johnson Lift and Escalators, which looks after lifts in Parijat and Sargam Apartments, is managing over 1,400 lifts in 200 apartments in the city. When one of their engineers was asked about the development, he said, "Right now, the operators are in the training process. They will be deployed in apartments by the end of June. They are being trained specifically to handle such situations."
We have also seen the reputation of Johnson lifts which is alarming and the customer is not satisfied with the quality and maintenance of the lifts. In Lucknow the Lucknow Development Authority installed Johnson lifts in so many high rise buildings from where many complaints are receiving regarding Johnson lifts failure. So in a nutshell, the reputation, quality and maintenance of the Johnson lifts are not satisfactory.
Now in the present case, we have also seen the Johnson lifts mishap in the said tower. If any lady or old person stuck in a lift they may be collapsed due to heart failure because ladies or old persons are not so strong as the adult one. As far as the opposite party's contention that the complainant did not depute any liftman in the lift, so it the fault of the complainant and there is no deficiency of the opposite party. We have seen the document of the opposite party in which, it has been specifically said that the training has been given in relation to a lift with or without a liftman. There is nothing to show that the opposite party has empathetically stated that lift man is necessary and if it is so, it is the duty of the opposite party first to know the credential of a lift man to be appointed by the complainant as lift man but there is no such document on record which shows that appointment of a lift man is not mandatory.
It has been stated by the opposite party that in the present case the lift has been installed in a 10 story building just to lure the customers. Nowadays in every multistoried building, lifts are essential part of life and in every multistoried building two or three lifts are installed so it is wrong to say that the installation of lift was only to allure the customers.
The opposite party has stated that the installation of the lift was subject to the availability of proper feasibility for installation of lift. There is nothing on record which can show that the complainant society did not perform his part regarding installation of the lift. If it is presumed that there were shortcomings on the part of the complainant, the question arises why did the opposite party install the lift? So these statements are nothing to do with the mishap of lift on certain occasions.
It has also been stated that the opposite parties conducted trial run for 24-hour on the said lift before handing over the same to the complainant and there was no defect in the said lift. Where is the trial run report of 24 hours? During 24 hours what was the speed of lift, whether there was any vibration in running the lift or not, how much time was being taken in opening of the lift gate at a particular floor, no report has been filed by the opposite parties.
So from the above facts and circumstances of the case and also from perusing the various documents which are scanned herein above, it is clear that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party for which they are liable to pay compensation which is after considering all the facts and circumstances will be awarded.
ORDER The complaint is partially allowed for the following reliefs:-
The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant ₹ 840,000/-towards cost of the lift, from 01.08.2012 with interest at a rate of 12% per annum if paid within 30 days from the date of judgement of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from 01.08.2012 till the date of actual payment.
The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant ₹ 2,00,000/- for the delay of delivery of the lift from 01.08.2012 with interest at a rate of 12% per annum if paid within 30 days from the date of judgement of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from 01.08.2012 till the date of actual payment.
The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant ₹ 25,00,000/-gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice , from 01.08.2012 with interest at a rate of 12% per annum if paid within 30 days from the date of judgement of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from 01.08.2012 till the date of actual payment.
The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant ₹ 30,00,000 /-towards compensation for financial losses and the loss of reputation and goodwill from 01.08.2012 with interest at a rate of 12% per annum if paid within 30 days from the date of judgement of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from 01.08.2012 till the date of actual payment.
The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant ₹ 50,000/-towards cost of the case without interest if paid within 30 days from the date of judgement of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum from 01.08.2012 till the date of actual payment.
Regarding relief no 6 , we are of the opinion that heavy cost/compensation through be imposed on the opposite parties for endangering the life of the common people living in the said society .So the opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant ₹ 50,00,000 /- towards endangering the human life of the society , mental torture and harassment from 01.08.2012 with interest at a rate of 12% per annum if paid within 30 days from the date of judgement of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 15% per annum from 01.08.2012 till the date of actual payment.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Sudha Upadhyay) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to the Record-room. (Sudha Upadhyay) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Dated : 12 . 08. 2024 Jafri, PA I (H) C-2 [HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY] MEMBER