State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lokesh Kumar vs Sdb Infrastructure on 8 August, 2022
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019
Date of Institution : 22.04.2019
Date of Reserve : 26.07.2022
Date of Decision : 08.08.2022
Lokesh Kumar, son of Sh. Rishipal, resident of House No.1699,
Type 2, D.M.W. Colony, Patiala, Punjab 147003.
.....Complainant
Versus
1. SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Som Datt Builders
Pvt. Limited), Sector 116, Sante Majra, Kharar-Landran
Road, Mohali, Punjab, through its Managing
Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.
[email protected].
Corporate Office:- SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly
Som Datt Builders Pvt. Limited), 56-58, Community Centre,
East of Kailash, New Delhi- 110065.
[email protected].
Registered Office:- SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly
Som Datt Builders Pvt. Limited), Gajraj Chambers, 2B,
Second Floor, 86 B/2 Topsia Road (South) Kolkata
WB700046 IN
[email protected].
2. Sh. Brahm Datt, Director of SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
(Formerly Som Datt Builders Pvt. Limited), Gajraj Chambers,
2B, Second Floor, 86 B/2 Topsia Road (South) Kolkata
WB700046 IN.
[email protected].
....Opposite Parties No.1 & 2
3. HDFC Limited, SCF No.55, Phase III-B-2, Mohali-160059,
through its Authorized Signatory.
....Performa opposite party
Consumer Complaint under Section 17
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 2
Quorum:-
Sh. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. Deepak Aggarwal Adv.
For Opposite parties No.1 &2 : Sh. Harsh Nagara, Adv.
For Opposite party No.3 : Ms. Neetu Singh, Adv. KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER:-
The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"), against the opposite parties (in short "OPs") seeking following directions against OPs No.1 & 2 :-
i) To provide occupation and completion certificate
ii) To restore the essential amenities to the flat of the complainant including water supply, electricity, power back up, sewerage etc. and in the absence of the same life of the complainant including his family members, has been made hell by the builder.
iii) To pay a total sum of Rs.7,13,000/- in order to carry out the repair works in view of the report dated 09.03.2019 by the Universal Planners Regd.
iv) To provide proper safety and security to residents of the project.
v) To refund the amount of service tax of Rs.89,903/- and car parking charges of Rs.50,000/- illegally charged from the complainant (refund of open car parking charges in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, Civil Appeal No.2544-2548 dated 31.08.2010).
vi) To refund the maintenance charges of Rs.12,000/-
charged by the OP w.e.f. period September, 2011 to February, 2012 in view of judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case CC No.1009 of 2016 date of decision 14.03.2017.
vii) To order to the OP, not to charge maintenance charges from the complainant, until and unless OP receives occupation certificate and completion certificate from the competent authority.
viii) To pay compensation in the sum of Rs.5 lacs on account of mental agony, physical harassment, mental pain, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice loss caused to the complainant.
ix) To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 3
2. Previously the complainant filed a Consumer complaint, bearing No.167 of 2012 before the District Commission, SAS Nagar, which was allowed by it vide order dated 04.09.2012. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved against the order of the District Commission, both the parties preferred appeals before this Commission, which were dismissed vide common order dated 15.09.2015. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, OP No.1 and 2 filed Revision Petition bearing No.3226 of 2015 before the National Commission, which was disposed off without going into the merits of the case, vide order dated 20.02.2017 and the complainant was directed to amend his complaint with prayer clause therein and file the same before the District Commission. Thereafter the case was restored by the District Commission, SAS Nagar and vide order dated 02.05.2017, it dismissed the complaint by holding that the total value of property is more than Rs.20 lakh and directed the complainant to approach the appropriate Court of Law/State Consumer Commission. As such, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this Commission.
3. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that on 11.06.2011, the complainant booked a flat bearing No.403, at Tower Ruby-6, 4th Floor, having Super Area 1249 square feet@ Rs.2395/- per Sq. Feet, in the project of OPs No.1 & 2 known as "SOM DATT's LANDMARK", Sector 116, Kharar-Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab by issuing cheque dated 14.06.2011 towards 10% of the basic sale price. The total sale price of the flat was fixed at Rs.29,91,355/- inclusive of proportionate share of the common Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 4 area. At the time of booking of the flat, OP No.1 & 2 assured the complainant that possession thereof, complete in all respects, will be delivered to him by August 2011, as construction thereof was about to complete. The allotment in respect of the said flat was confirmed vide allotment letter/agreement dated 21.06.2011 containing detailed terms and conditions of the sale thereof. The complainant opted for down payment plan. It was clearly mentioned in the allotment letter that one car parking would be provided under stilt or open car parking at surface. The complainant visited the project site and noticed that nobody was taking care of the work in the flat and there were major defects in the flat. The same was brought to the notice of OPs No.1 & 2 but to no avail. The complainant also sent emails to them regarding the said fact but his grievance was not taken care of. The complainant was shocked that without redressing his grievance, possession of the incomplete flat was offered to him vide letter dated 02.08.2011 and it was also threatened that in case the complainant did not clear the remaining payment within 15 days therefrom, delayed payment interest @18 % p.a. will be charged from him. Thereafter during the intervening period, maintenance agreement dated 16.08.2011 was also handed over to the complainant. The complainant made number of requests to OPs No.1 & 2 to rectify the defects and to make the flat habitable. However, the complainant was not heard and was pressed to make payment of the remaining amount as demanded vide offer of possession letter. Thereafter, under compelling circumstances, Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 5 possession of the flat in question was taken over by the complainant on 02.09.2011 after availing the loan from OP No.3. The act and conduct of OPs No.1 and 2 has led various problems to the complainant with regard to larger security issues, substandard construction and lack of proper amenities affects maintenance charges significantly, as repair and replacement can lead to high and frequent costs. Thereafter, on persistent pressure of OPs No.1 & 2, the complainant had to get the registry done on 09.09.2011. However, during the period intervening some work was done by OPs No.1 & 2 in the said flat. Thereafter on 28.09.2011, the complainant had to sign the acknowledgement slip to the defect list, to enter his flat. On entering his flat, he was again shocked to see that the toilets in the flat were spreading a foul smell. The toilet seats were found damaged and most of the defects pointed out earlier were not removed. As such, he again started requesting OPs No.1 & 2 to do the needful by sending detailed emails, but to no avail. The OPs No.1 & 2 have extracted huge amount of Rs.35,95,318/- from the complainant towards price of the said flat but failed to provide services to the complainant, which they were legally bound to provide. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2, the complainant prayed for acceptance of the present complaint.
4. The complaint is contested by the OPs. OP No.1 & 2 filed joint written reply and raised certain preliminary objections, inter-alia, that the present complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 6 hands and has rather concealed the material facts regarding filing of other consumer complaints and civil suit by him. The present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law as not filed in proper form and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention and bad motive just to get undue advantage against the answering OPs. On merits, OPs No.1 & 2 stated that the complainant visited the project repeatedly, observed and verified the same and only after his satisfaction applied with the OPs for purchasing the flat. The sample flat was temporary building with temporary roof etc., however the flats to be sold were ready for possession and the complainant shown the actual flat, the possession of which was handed over to him on his option to purchase the same. The flats were provided with same quality of items and fixtures as displayed in the sample flat. All necessary approvals and sanction from the Competent Authority were obtained by the OPs. The complainant after verifying the quality of construction and amenities etc. in the project, booked the flat in question on 11.06.2011 and further filed application dated 20.06.2011 for allotment of the same, which was allotted to him vide allotment letter dated 21.06.2011 for Rs.29,91,355/-. The main construction work of the flat was complete, however the finishing work/fixtures and fitting work was in progress, which was got done by the complainant in his presence by paying his regular visits to the site. The entire finishing work of fixtures/fittings etc. was done by the experts of the OPs. When the entire work of the flat was competed to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 7 only then he agreed to take the possession of the flat in question, vide possession letter dated 02.09.2011. At the time of taking possession of flat along with the keys he did not raise any kind of objection. The complainant could have refused to take possession, if there was any defect in the apartment/flat. But since there is no such instance, it shows that the apartment was without any defect. The complainant filed a consumer complaint initially on 03.05.2012 before the District Commission and at the first appearance of the OPs, without filing the written statement, as a gesture of goodwill and with a view to satisfy the complainant, they provided the extra facilities and did the entire extra work, whatsoever demanded by the complainant and that work was beyond the settled terms and conditions enshrined in the letter of allotment. After the said work there was no defect left over in the apartment and furthermore, the complainant is using the apartment since 2011 i.e. for the last more than 8 years and normal wear and tear in the premises are natural with the use of the same by the occupants/residents of the apartment. The said normal wear and tear cannot be claimed by the complainant against OPs No.1 & 2. The maintenance agreement dated 16.08.2011 was executed between the parties containing the settled terms and conditions and the complainant is bound to pay the maintenance charges. But he has failed to pay the same and is in huge arrears amounting to Rs.3,26,349/- along with interest. The OPs ultimately compelled to file the complaint under Section 19 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 against the complainant for recovery of Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 8 the said amount before the Chairman, Punjab State Regulatory Authority, which is also pending. The complainant had also been availing all the common services being provided such that lift, water supply, sewerage, roads, drainage, street lights, club and security etc. The sale deed of the apartment was also got done by the complainant on 09.09.2011 as per his convenience and without any objection from the OPs. There is no negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 in any manner. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In reply to complaint OP No.3 stated that the grievance of the complainant is only against OPs No. 1 & 2, who have allegedly failed to deliver their commitments in terms of Floor Buyer's Agreement and the complainant is aggrieved of the delay in handing over of the possession of the apartment. There is no allegations of deficiency in service against it. It is further stated that in case of cancellation of the unit or in the contingency of termination of the Floor Buyer's Agreement, the HDFC bank has the first charge/right to seek apportionment of its dues. The bank has right to proceed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement. Alleging no deficiency on its part, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it.
6. To prove his case, the complainant, along with the complaint filed his affidavit and copies of documents Exhibit C-1 to C-20. On the other hand, OPs No.1 & 2 filed on record affidavit of Sh. Zora Singh, authorized representative, along with copies of Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 9 documents Ex. R-1 to R-10. OP No.3 filed on record affidavit of Aditya Kochar, Assistant Manager alongwith Annexure OP-3/1.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through written submission filed by the complainant and OP No.1 & 2 and have perused the record of the case.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the District Commission, SAS Nagar, returned the complaint filed before it and gave liberty to the complainant to approach competent Court of Law/State Commission. Accordingly, the complainant filed the present complaint after the order of the District Commission, therefore the same cannot be said to be not filed within the period of limitation. The learned counsel further argued that the complainant is agitating his grievance regarding poor workmanship, flat is not habitable, seepage problem, basic amenities not complete, completion certificate not obtained by the builder etc, even before taking the possession and also immediately after taking of the possession uptill now. The completion certificate had yet not been obtained by the OPs No.1 & 2. The partial completion certificate had been taken that too on 06.08.2015 with several conditions attached thereto, whereas possession was offered on 02.09.2011, which was not a proper possession. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 10
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs No. 1 & 2 argued that the flats were provided with same quality of items and fixtures of the same company as displayed in the sample flat. All necessary approvals and sanction from the competent authority were obtained by the OPs. The partial completion certificate of the project has already been issued by the competent authority. The complainant was at liberty to obtain the occupation certificate from the authority. There is no hindrance by the OPs in obtaining the occupation certificate. Moreover, it is the obligation on the part of the allottee to obtain the occupation certificate. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the written reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
10. Learned counsel for OP No.3 also argued on the similar lines as stated in its written reply, which are not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. The learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.
11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant had booked the flat in question, having super area of 1249 sq. ft. in the project of the OPs called 'SOM DATT's LANDMARK', Sector 116, Kharar-Landran Road, Mohali, the possession of which, was to be given in August, 2011, complete in all respects. It has been alleged by the complainant that during the period intervening, he had visited the project site to see the progress of construction, but poor workmanship was observed in the said flat and the same was Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 11 brought to the notice of OPs No.1 & 2 verbally, a number of times but to no avail. He also sent email to the OPs from 28.07.2011 to 13.08.2011, Ex. C-7(colly) along with photographs Ex. C-8 (Colly). The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the incomplete flat was offered to him vide letter dated 02.08.2011, Ex.C-9, without removing the said defects and he was also pressed to take over the possession of the flat on 02.09.2011, which was still not made habitable and the major defects were still found in the flat, as have been stated in para 9 of the present complaint. Subsequently, the registry of the said flat was done on 09.09.2011. Further grievance of the complainant is that he was also forced to sign acknowledgment slip in token to the defects having been removed, to enter his flat. On the other hand, the OPs No. 1& 2 submitted that the defects pointed out by the complainant were duly attended to and that he even signed the acknowledgment slip at the time of taking of the possession. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the OPs No. 1 & 2 that once the complainant had taken over the possession of the flat after satisfying himself that the defects so pointed out were removed, he was estopped from raising the issue time and again.
13. At the outset, we would first like to deal with the preliminary objections raised by the OPs No.1 & 2 in the present complaint. The foremost objection is that the complaint is barred by limitation as the flat was allotted to the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 21.06.2011 and thereafter he took over the possession of the flat on 02.09.2011. To determine this point, we Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 12 find that the complainant had initially filed the same complaint bearing No.167 of 2012 on dated 03.05.2012 and which was subsequently decided on 04.09.2012. However, the same complaint is still being adjudicated upon from that time onwards with amendment of prayer clause, in compliance with the order of Hon'ble National Commission dated 20.02.2017. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant is pursuing his continuous cause of action by filing the present complaint, hence the same is not barred by limitation.
14. Another objection taken by OPs No.1 & 2 is that the complainant concealed the material facts regarding filing of a Civil Suit for Mandatory injunction against OPs No.1 & 2 seeking the same relief vide Civil Suit No.66 dated 13.03.2014 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Civil Judge Jr. Division, Kharar, Annexure R-4. Therefore, on this ground of concealment, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. We have perused the said order of the Civil Court, Annexure R-4, which shows that the complainant filed the said civil suit for Mandatory Injunction and permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from disconnecting the water connection, which is a different cause of action. Moreover, the said civil suit was not decided on merit and the same was dismissed in view of Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, we are of the opinion that it is not mandatory for the complainant to disclose if a legal remedy has been pursued for a separate cause of action. Therefore, the plea of the OPs is hereby declined. Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 13
15. OPs No.1 & 2 further raised objection that the RERA being a special statue took precedence over the Consumer Protection Act and complaint before this Commission is not maintainable. In this regard, we are of the considered view that by introduction of RERA, the jurisdiction of the Act is not specifically ousted. The scope and reach of the Act has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, some of the important ones are: Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, Skypay Couriers Limited v. Tata Chemicals Limited (2000) 5 SCC 294, State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society (2003) 2 SCC 412, CCI Chambers Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. Development Credit Bank Limited (2003) 7 SCC 233, Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and H.N. Shankara Shastry Vs. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka (2004) 6 SCC 230. Moreover, this Commission is an additional remedy under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provided to the Consumer. The relevant Section 3 of the Act is reproduced as below:-
"3. Act not in derogation of any other law- The provisions of this Act shall be made in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force."
Accordingly, the plea raised by OPs No.1 & 2 that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is not acceptable and the same is hereby rejected.
Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 14
16. Now considering the pecuniary nature of the present dispute, every effort has been made to adjudicate the present complaint with thorough reading of the pleadings evidence as well as findings and observations of the District Commission, since the complaint had been originally instituted in District Commission way back in 2012. For the fair adjudication of the present controversy, it would be important to discuss the relief sought by the complainant one by one stated as under:-
Relief (i): To provide occupation and completion certificate:
To adjudicate the said point, it is relevant to discuss Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act(PAPRA), 1995 and the relevant section of the said Act is reproduced as under:-
"14(i): in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority." The partial completion certificate of the project has already been issued by the competent authority, annexure R-6. Since it is an undisputed fact that the possession of the flat had been taken by the complainant on 02.09.2011 and sale deed has also been executed between the parties on 09.09.2011, the complainant could have himself also applied for the completion/occupation certificate as he is staying and using the said flat, as per provisions of the PAPRA.
Relief (ii): To restore the essential amenities to the flat of the complainant including water supply, electricity, power back up, sewerage etc. and in the absence of the Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 15 same life of the complainant including his family members, has been made hell by the builder:
Before we proceed to adjudicate this point, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant after verifying and satisfying about the quality of construction, project site, amenities and other facilities provided to him and other flat owners, had taken the possession of the flat in question and suffered the acknowledgement without any protest. The complainant is bound to adhere to the terms and conditions of the maintenance agreement and to pay the maintenance charges/water charges etc. since the OPs have received the power backup charges of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and other allottees for laying out and maintenance of that infrastructure. It is being used for providing backup facility to the complainant and other individual flat owners, as well as common area and other services like elevators, stilt floor, staircase lightning, street lights, hydro automatic pumps for pumping water to over head tanks, tubewells and STP equipment, club building and swimming pool, swimming area lights and fire fighting system etc. Accordingly, we do not find force in the said prayer of the complainant and the same is hereby rejected.
Relief (iii): To pay a total sum of Rs.7,13,000/- in order to carry out the repair works in view of the report dated 09.03.2019 by the Universal Planners Regd:
The complainant has relied on the estimate report of an independent agent on his own and seeks a claim of Rs.7,13,000/- towards repair. We have perused the said report of Universal Planners (Regd.), Ex. C-20 (colly), a perusal of which reveals that Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 16 the same is dated 09.03.2019 i.e. after about 8 years from occupying and using the apartment since its possession i.e. 02.09.2011. As such, the claim of Rs.7,13,000/- cannot be related back to the time when the complainant was actually allotted the said flat. The said defects could have occurred due to natural wear and tear also by the occupants to the building as the apartment has been in possession of the complainant since 02.09.2011 and he has been using the said premises right upto 2019. Therefore, we are of the view that the OPs are not liable to pay Rs.7,13,000/-
as per report dated 09.03.2019 as the same is also beyond the terms of allotment letter/agreement.
Relief (iv): To provide proper safety and security to residents of the project.
In reply to the said point, the learned counsel for the OPs contended that no theft has been reported in the premises to the Company or Policy Authorities ever by the complainant/any other occupant of the said dwelling. The project is already equipped with proper safety and security for the residents of the project and the same is equipped with CCTV cameras and there are five guards with 24 hours service. We find force in the contention of OPs as the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence with regard to security issue in the premises of the Society. Relief (v): To refund the amount of service tax of Rs.89,903/- and car parking charges of Rs.50,000/- illegally charged from the complainant (refund of open car parking charges in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, Civil Appeal No.2544-2548 dated 31.08.2010):
With regard to the aforesaid disputed point, it has been observed that amount of service tax was charged under the statutory Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 17 provision of VAT Act, 2005 and now GST Act, 2017 and same had been deposited with the State Authorities. The government taxes cannot be evaded. The open car parking with right to exclusive use has been provided as agreed by the complainant in his application form dated 20.06.2011 and car parking has been provided. Hence, we do not find force in the said prayer of the complainant and the same is hereby rejected. Relief (vi) & (vii): To refund the maintenance charges of Rs.12,000/- charged by the OP w.e.f. period September, 2011 to February, 2012 in view of judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case CC No.1009 of 2016 date of decision 14.03.2017. And to order to the OP, not to charge maintenance charges from the complainant, until and unless OP receives occupation certificate and completion certificate from the competent authority.
As discussed earlier, it is our opinion that the complainant is bound the adhere to the terms and conditions of the maintenance agreement dated 16.08.2011, Ex. C-11, executed between the parties. Moreover, as per Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1955, the said maintenance agreement was entered into by both the parties in respect to various common facilities and maintenance of the common areas. Therefore, the complainant is bound to pay the same. Hence, we do not find any force in the contention raised by the complainant regarding refund of maintenance charges.
(viii) & (ix) To pay compensation in the sum of Rs.5 lacs on account of mental agony, physical harassment, mental pain, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice loss caused to the complainant. And to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 18
In the light of our above discussion, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and litigation cost as prayed for on account of aforesaid grievances.
17. However, the fact that the complainant has been agitating certain shortcomings/defects in the said unit even before and after taking the possession, as is clear from Ex.C-7 (colly), cannot be overlooked. He has been pursuing his remedy before various Fora since 2012. To be fair to the complainant, we have however perused the photographs annexed with the estimate report Ex. C-20 (colly) and find that following shortcomings/defects have been highlighted in the said unit/flat:-
1) Seepage in Secondary bedroom, Master
bedroom, Kitchen and Living Dining Hall.
2) Water leakage in the roof in bathrooms and
modular kitchen.
3) Defect in Aluminum fitted windows.
4) Defects in Bathroom Doors and CP Plumbing
fittings
5) Seepage and damage to External Balcony.
Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be fairly met if OPs No. 1 & 2 be directed to inspect the said flat, rectify and repair the aforesaid shortcomings/defects free of costs.
18. A sequel of our above discussion, we partly allow the complaint filed by the complainant and direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to inspect the said flat, rectify and repair the above defects as mentioned in para No.17 of this order, within a period of 3 months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. There are no allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on Consumer Complaint No.308 of 2019 19 the part of the OP No.3-Bank in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed qua OP No.3.
19. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases and non- sitting of this Commission due to pandemic of Covid-19.
(H.P.S. MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER August 8th, 2022.
(dv)