State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Raminder Kaur vs Sh. Sandeep Khullar & Ors on 11 May, 2016
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008
Date of Institution: 04.09.2008
Date of Decision: 11.05.2016
Smt. Raminder Kaur wife of Sh. Harminder Singh, resident of
H.No.1539-1540, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Pb.) through her
Special Attorney Joginder Pal Singh s/o late Sh.Gian Singh r/o
H.No.3333, Sector-71, SAS Nagar Mohali.
.....Complainant
Versus
1. Sh. Sandeep Khullar s/o Sh. Des Raj Khullar resident of
H.No.1662, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh. (Presently residing at
no.1367-1368, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh).
2. Sh. Des Raj Khullar, resident of H.No.1662, Sector 33-D,
Chandigahr (Presently resident at no.1367-1368, Sector 33-C,
Chandigarh).
3. Khullar Builders, Phase-7 Mohali, SCF 125, Phase VII, SAS
Nagar, Mohali through its Proprietor Sh. Des Raj Khullar.
....Opposite Parties
Consumer complaint under Section
17(1)(a) of Consumer Protection Act,1986
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri J.S. Gill, Member Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. Sanjay Joshi, Advocate For the opposite parties : Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate ................................................ J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Complainant Raminder Kaur through her special power of attorney holder Joginder Pal Singh has instituted this complaint under Section 17(1) (a) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short "the Act") against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as 'OPs') on the averments that she engaged the services of OPs with regard Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 2 to construction of her residential plot no.1539-1540, Sector 69, SAS Nagar Mohali of 1000 square yards, vide agreement dated 12.01.2004 entered into between OP no.1 and her above attorney holder. The construction was agreed to be raised as per structural drawings to be provided by Architect Sh. Harpreet Singh and Mr. Ashutosh Handa and it was to be constructed on Turnkey Basis. As per agreement, OPs were to execute the project on Turnkey basis @ 895 per square feet and the cost of projection area would be Rs.445/- per square feet and the project was to be completed within 15 months from the date of first payment made to contractor and in default of which, Rs.15,000/- per week were agreed to be imposed.
The payment was agreed to be released as per Annexure II, which formed part of the agreement as per clause 13 and 17 of it. The complainant released the amount of Rs.8 lakhs, vide cheque no.614360 dated 22.01.2004 and Rs.12 lakhs, vide cheque no.614361 dated 22.01.2004 to the OPs and OPs started raising the construction of the house of the complainant. The complainant released the amount of Rs.91 lakhs, as per agreed terms between the parties. The OP demanded more money due to financial constraints resulting in delay to complete the house. The complainant released another amount of Rs.24 lakhs and total amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- was released to the OPs. Mr. Ashutosh Handa, the architect visited the spot to find out the position of construction, but was not satisfied therewith. Vide letter dated 14.08.2007, the said architect requested OP no.1 to complete the Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 3 repairs at the earliest. OP failed to provide the service, as per agreement between the parties. The complainant deputed M/s Verma and Associates to assess the quality of work done by the OPs and with regard to various other defects/cracks and faults as against the structural drawings. The report of building expert M/s Verma Associates is dated 12.08.2007 with regard to defective construction by OPs in entire building alongwith photographs. The said architect and valuer prepared the claim on behalf of complainant and found that OPs have overcharged Rs.6,45,962/- from the complainant. On receipt of letter dated 31.07.2007 from OPs regarding the finalization of the house, the architect and the valuer determined the amount of penalty charges, as per condition no.10 of the agreement and found that delay of 116 weeks took place in completing the construction and as such determined the penalty @Rs.15,000/- per week totaling Rs.17,40,000/-. It is further alleged in the complaint that OPs were to purchase the materials for construction, as per settlement, but the complainant had to purchase many items thereof. The architect and valuer determined the value of those items purchased by the complainant and they were of Rs.14,48,460/- as spent by the owner for their purchase. The details of bills is annexed in appendix G alongwith the annexure 1 to 13. It is further alleged that OPs were to provide the pre-fabricated kitchen on the ground floor costing Rs.3,50,000/-, but the same has been purchased and paid by the complainant on the premise that it would be reimbursed by OPs at the time of final settlement of the account. Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 4 The OPs also have not provided various agreed facilities, as per Clause 10 para no.8 of agreement, as such two bathrooms were to be equipped with Jacquard Crystal cum gold fittings. Bathroom accessories have also not been provided in any of the nine bathrooms and in kitchen, which were the basic requirements of any house. The OPs have also not provided fresh water to any of the nine bathrooms and kitchen. The complainant came to know only when informed by OPs for completion of the house, vide letter appendix F. The OPs have also not paid the water bills and electricity consumption charges bills, as agreed between the parties, vide Clause 8 of the agreement. It is further pleaded that the said valuer and architect found various deficiencies, as compared to drawings provided to the OPs with regard to construction and work executed by the architect. The said valuer duly took the photographs of various defects and deficiencies at various places in the building. The amount of Rs.5,37,234/- was determined at 5% of the total amount of construction, which is also payable alongwith interest for the various defects and deficiencies at various places in the building. The complainant had to provide supporting pillars in order to stabilize the said projected area, which was raised through another contractor by the complainant by spending huge amounts thereon. The OPs raised balcony/rear verandah which was a projected area and was leaning downward at various places. The said architect and valuer found that the amount of Rs.53,273/- was recoverable from the OPs on this count. The said architect and valuer determined the amount Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 5 of Rs.44,24,929/- recoverable from OPs towards various defects and deficiencies and the goods purchased and the delay in completing the construction of the house. The complainant suffered losses for want of handing completing the construction of the building and, thus, delay in possession of the house by the OPs and spent Rs.5 lakhs as she could not occupy the house in time and it is recoverable from OPs. The construction was not raised by the OPs, as per the drawings and as per the satisfaction of the complainant. The cost of fabricated kitchen is liable to be reimbursed to the complainant by the OPs. The OPs also raised construction of one Smt. Savita Dudhpuri R/o 4005, Sector 68, Mohali earlier, which was also defective one. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying that OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.69,24,929/- for the deficiency in service in the construction of the house and on other counts as well.
2. Upon notice, OPs filed written version to the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint cannot be filed through attorney holder on behalf of complainant. The complainant has manipulated the drawings and plans and also increased some area and decreased some area of the project later on unilaterally. Actual area at construction site is different from that shown in the complaint. Separate application for appointment of independent engineer from Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) was filed by the OPs to assess the actual area of work done and extra wok done (in addition to the contract), Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 6 complimentary work done etc. by the OPs. The complaint is alleged to be false and fabricated and, thus, not maintainable. The complaint is nothing but only misuse of process of law. It is averred that Sh. R.D. Sharma approved chartered engineer was deputed to make the assessment of the construction of the house of the complainant. The first page is of the actual contract and rest of the pages was changed later on by the complainant. The plans which were provided with the agreement were approved by PUDA now GMADA, but when construction was started, changes were made therein except basement by the complainant. More covered area as well as projected area was included therein lateron. The complainant supplied marble after nine months in January 2005 to OPs. Fixing of marble requires time, as it needs polishing the house and can be painted after fixing of marble only. It was not possible for OP to complete the house within remaining three months. The work was stopped for 33 weeks on account of non-payment of due installments by the complainant to OPs and it was started again in the Month of May, 2006. It remained stopped from the Month of September, 2005 to May, 2006. On 01.08.2006, OP no.1 approached the architects of the complainant M/s Designer Inc. for completion certificate, as per payment schedule. Mr. Ashutosh Handa stated that M/s Designer Inc. is not authorized to issue any such completion certificate. An amount of Rs.25,27,914/- was due from complainant after completion of the construction on 01.08.2006. The agent of complainant disputed this amount, as he alleged to have paid more Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 7 than the amount as deducted. It was with the efforts of Mr. Ashutosh Handa complainant's architect that it was agreed that complainant shall pay Rs.15,00,000/- only. On 29.08.2006, architect of complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/-, through Mr. Handa on 29.08.2006, vide cheque no.823210 dated 21.08.2006. The agent of complainant withheld the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- without any reason. The complex questions of facts are involved in this case, which cannot be adjudicated in summary manner by the Consumer Forum. Vide letter dated 01.08.2006, the complainant was informed through her agent that she could visit the house at anytime, as it was ready. The complainant being NRI never came to visit the spot. After one year on 17.07.2007, Mr. Ashutosh Handa told OPs that as per verbal discussion with Mr. Harminder Singh husband of the complainant, the house required some finishing touches. Vide letter dated 31.07.2007, it was informed to him that everything has been done and request was made to kindly ask the owner to clear the dues of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of OPs. There is difference in actual area and area calculated by valuer of the complainant of the constructed house. Actual calculations by Mr. R.D.Sharma approved charted engineer dated 08.08.2006 is on the record. It is further averred that work was stopped on request of complainant for more than 33 weeks and contractor suffered a loss due to cost escalation therein. Sh. R.D. Sharma approved chartered engineer has already deducted the amount, which was paid by the complainant for purchasing the goods, as per purchase price of the contractor in his report. All the Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 8 bills of electricity consumption charges were consumed during the construction period paid by the OPs. Bills for 33 weeks were not paid as the work remained stopped at the instance of complainant. Contract and drawings provided to OPs did not have any provision of garage door. All type of decorative work was done by the OPs, as per the agreement. There was no separate bathing area, where fresh water taps could be provided. There was water softener plant fitted in the house, where fresh water supply was connected for supplying water after removal of harmful chemicals. Chimney provision was done in kitchens as per working drawings and client requirements and there was no mention of exhaust fan in working drawings. All work was done properly as per drawings by the OPs. OPs denied any deficiency in construction of the house of the complainant on their part. No drawings were proved to OPs and not providing in agreement to put wood on ceiling. POP plaster and false ceiling were done throughout the inner ceiling of the basement, ground floor, first floor and cement plaster was done on exterior ceiling and work of civil plaster, POP and pain work were provided for the ground floor fireplace, which was not in the agreement and it was done as complimentary. The answering OPs have done all the work, as per the agreement executed between the parties. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with the prayer that complainant be directed to pay remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to them.
Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 9
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.RW-1/1 to Ex.RW-3/1 alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9 and closed the evidence.
4. Vide order dated 29.08.2013 of this commission, this appeal was dismissed by this Commission by relegating the parties to Civil Court for the Redressal of their grievances. Appeal was preferred against the order of this Commission before the Hon'ble National Commission in first appeal no.852 of 2013. Vide order dated 09.12.2015, the National Commission set aside the order of this Commission and remanded the case to this Commission for fresh decision in accordance with law on merits.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case in pursuance of order of the National Commission dated 09.12.2015 in first appeal no.852 of 2013 in this case. We have examined affidavit of Joginder Pal Singh attorney holder on behalf of complainant, vide Ex.C-1 on the record. Ex.C-2 is the copy of the deed of special power of attorney executed by complainant in favour of Joginder Pal Singh on 21.07.2008. Ex.C-3 is the agreement executed between the parties with regard to raising the construction over the plots on 12th January, 2004. Ex.C-4 is the report of Verma & Associates, Architects, Planners, Engineers & Valuers with regard to deficiency in the construction raised on the plots by the OPs. The drawings are the part of this report. The receipts with regard to payment of the amount paid by the Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 10 complainant to OPs are Annexure 1 to Annexure 20. Annexure 21 is letter dated 25.09.2006 from Architect Ashutosh Handa to Joginder Pal Singh regarding handing over the cheque no.823210 dated 21.08.2006 amounting to Rs.5 lakhs to Sandeep Khullar on 29.08.2006, for which he received no receipt. Appendix F is letter dated 31.07.2007 written by Sandeep Khullar OP to Ashutosh Handa, the architect of complainant with regard to completion of finishing touches at house no.1539-40. It is stated in this letter that whatever was left incomplete as per verbal discussion with Harminder Singh and J.P. Singh attorney of complainant, now the same have been done as per list given by the complainant and asked him to visit the spot for checking the work done. OPs wrote through this letter on 31.07.2007, vide appendix F to pay the dues of Rs.10,00,000/- which were pending for payment by the complainant. The complainant relied upon above referred evidence on the record in this case to prove her version.
6. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sandeep Khullar OP no.1, Affidavit of Des Raj Khullar OP no.2 Ex.RW-2/1 on the record and affidavit of R.D. Sharma Valuer Ex.RW-3/1 on the record. He proved his report Ex.R-1 dated 08.08.2006 with regard to the construction on the record and drawings are appendix A to appendix R on the record. Another drawings are Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-7 on the record. Ex.R-8/1 to Ex.R-8/4 are the photographs of the constructed area raised by the OPs on Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 11 the record of the house in question. Ex.R-9 is the original agreement executed between the parties containing the terms and conditions.
7. We have examined the written submissions placed on record by both the parties. Firstly, we have to examine the point as raised by the OPs as to whether the complaint can be filed through power of attorney holder by complainant or not. No bar under CP Act, 1986 is there on filing the complaint through power of attorney holder and agent acts on behalf of principal within the directions given by the principal only. Consequently, we do not find any force in the submission of counsel for the OPs that this complaint cannot be filed through power of attorney holder by the complainant. The submission raised by the OPs is not accepted by us on this point. There is affidavit of Joginder Pal Singh attorney holder of complainant on the record to the effect that the contents of the complaint have been stated to be correct by him. The complainant has tendered affidavit of her attorney Joginder Pal Singh on the record in this case only. To counter this evidence, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sandeep Khullar OP no.1 Ex.RW-1/1, affidavit of Des Raj OP no.2 Ex.RW-2/1 and affidavit of Sh. R.D. Sharma valuer approved by Income Tax Department and valuer approved by instruction of Valuers, Delhi, who proved his report Ex.R-1 on the record. The complainant herself has not entered into witness box nor filed any affidavit to prove her case on the record before the Forum. The complainant has not filed the affidavit of Verma and Associates, Architects, Planners, Engineers and Valuers Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 12 on the record to prove the report Ex.C-4. The case of the complainant is based on the agreement Ex.C-3 entered into between the parties on 12.01.2004 as well as the on the report of Verma and Associates Architect and planners Ex.C-4 on the record. Various drawings are the part of the report of Verma and Associates, which are the sheet-anchor of the case of the complainant in this case. Firstly, the complainant claimed the amount of Rs.6,45,962/- from OPs with regard to overcharging the amounts against the actual costs. Neither the affidavit of complainant nor the affidavit of Valuer Verma & Associates are on the record to prove this fact. Only affidavit of her attorney holder Joginder Pal Singh is on the record. The complainant relied upon the report of Verma & Associates Ex.C-4 dated 12.07.2008 on the record. Verma & Associates has reported that total amount paid to contractor by the complainant through GPA to OP from time to time is Rs.1,15,00,000/-. He found the total value of the covered area 11,611.40 square feets into Rs.895/- per square feet and total cost/value of covered area as Rs.98,11,633/-. The total cost of projected area of Rs.1,08,54,038/-. The OPs relied upon report of another expert and valuer Sh.R.D. Sharma on the record. He calculated the items in detail in his report and found the total covered area of all floors as 12,617.72 square feets and total projected area on all floors as 4828.81 square feets. The cost of construction has been calculated by him as Rs.1,06,61,973/- after deducting marble cost. There is no independent evidence on the record by the complainant to establish Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 13 this that OPs overcharged the amount of Rs.6,45,962/- from her. The OPs pleaded that complainant manipulated the drawings & plans and increased some area and decreased some area and actual area of construction is, thus, different from the shown area in the drawings. This is a case of expert evidence versus expert evidence on the record by both the sides. The OPs relied upon affidavit of his expert Sh.R.D. Sharma Ex.RW-3/1. On the other hand, the complainant has not filed the affidavit of his expert Verma & Associates on the record to prove her case. No independent expert was got appointed through the agency of this Forum to determine this point by the complainant.
8. The next ground of the complainant is that OP caused delay in delivery of possession to complainant. The delay of 116 weeks took place in this case and the penalty liable to Rs.15,000/- per week, which comes to Rs.17,40,000/-, as per expert's report of complainant. We have to examine whether there is any delay in this case on the part of OPs without reasonable ground or not. Clause 10 of the Agreement Ex.C-3 stipulated that construction would be completed within 15 months by the OPs. The OPs pleaded that complainant has not supplied the marble for nine months and she supplied the marbles in January 2005 and it requires time to fixing the marble and its polishing. The OPs further pleaded that construction of the above house again stopped on the instructions of complainant in the month of September, 2005, as she requested that she was not able to pay further installments for a while at the time to Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 14 the OPs and due to above reasons the work was stopped for more than 33 weeks and it was again started in the Month of May, 2006. There is no rebuttal by complainant to the evidence of the OPs that marble was provided in time and money was paid in time and OPs caused delay on its part. If complainant herself delayed the project by not supplying the marbles and by not releasing the money to the contractor then how the construction could be completed by the OPs by spending money from their own pocket. On this count, there is no cogent or independent evidence by the complainant to substantiate it, as complainant herself has also not deposed to support it. The OPs rather moved to this Forum for appointment of PWD/GMADA approved valuer on 29.04.2009. On 27.07.2009, the complainant opposed it on the ground that he has relied upon the report of Engineer-cum-valuer and hence no third engineer or expert is required. This Forum disposed the application of OPs as not maintainable on 27.07.2009, which also proves the readiness of OPs for the appointment of independent expert witness on the record.
9. The complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with regard to pre-fabricated kitchen purchased by the complainant. It is submitted that OPs contractor was to purchase the material for construction as per settlement, but complainant/owner had herself to purchase many items therefor. It is further pleaded that complainant spent Rs.14,48,460/- and detail of bills are annexed in appendix G alongwith annexure 1 to 13. The complainant has, thus, further alleged that as per clause 10 of sanitary works of Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 15 agreement, that two bathrooms will be provided with crystal collection (golden cum crystal), but OPs had not provided the bathroom accessories in any of the nine bathrooms and OPs further not provided any exhaust fans in any of the bathrooms and kitchens. The fresh water was also not provided by the OPs in any of the nine bathrooms and kitchens. The complainant mainly relied upon the report of Verma and Associates Ex.C-4 on the record in this regard. He has stated that under head 5C that complainant had to spend Rs.14,48,460/- on purchasing of items/material, which is recoverable by the complainant from OPs. But OPs denied this fact by stating that as per clients requirements there were 10 piece Jacuzzi and steam enclosures. Fresh water contains calcium and it blocks the nozzles and damages the pump. There was no separate bathing area, where fresh water taps could be provided. There was a water softener plant fitted in the house, where fresh water supply is connected and it supplies water after removal of harmful chemicals. Jaguar crystal fittings provided in two master bathrooms and queens fitting were provided in the rest. The OPs relied upon affidavit of Sh. R.D Sharma valuer Ex.RW-3/1 and on his report Ex.R-1 and he calculated the amount of Rs.8,19,152/- paid by the owner on contractor's behalf, as per her own choice and it was to be deducted from the final bill. This expert further calculated at page no.5 of his report dated 08.08.2006, vide Ex.R-1, the detail of work done as complementary (free of cost), which was not counted by the complainant. He found that amount payable by the owner to the Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 16 contractor in clause F at page no.6 of the report regarding Abstract of Cost is Rs.25,27,914/-. Merely by stating that complainant spent on the items Rs.14,48,460/-, even the complainant herself has not entered into the witness box, as she is an NRI. Evidence of Verma & Associates stands rebutted by the expert evidence of Sh. R.D.Sharma valuer of OPs on the record.
10. The complainant also claimed an amount of Rs.5,37,234/- for deficiencies in service on the part of OPs. The complainant has alleged in complaint that his valuer Verma & Associates, the expert duly took the photographs of various defects and deficiencies at various places in the building. He stated that complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.5,37,234/- @5% of the total amount of construction from the OPs. The complainant further alleged that OPs had not provided pillars to stabilize the said projected area, which were raised through another contractor by spending huge amount on this. The valuer of complainant assessed the amount of Rs.53,273/- recoverable from OPs by the complainant on this count. The OPs have not admitted it and relied upon the report of Sh. R.D. Sharma, the approved valuer Ex.R-1. We have examined the expert reports of both the experts on the record. Sh. R.D. Sharma has found in his report that no such amount is due from OPs to complainant. This witness also proved his report Ex.R-1, vide his affidavit Ex.RW-3/1 on the record. The onus is on the complainant to establish deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is pleaded in complaint that OPs raised a balcony, which was a Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 17 projected area at various places without support of any pillar and it was leaning downward at various places. There is neither any affidavit of any contractor nor any agreement regarding raising the pillars on the record by the complainant. Sh. R.D. Sharma Valuer and expert of OPs has not admitted this fact and consequently complainant remained unable to establish that she is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.5,37,234/- for deficiencies in service and Rs.53,273/- expenses of raising the above pillars, through another contractor on this count. The cost of pre-fabricated kitchen stands adjusted with regard to the other costs, as per report of Sh. R.D. Sharma expert on the record, vide Ex.R-1.
11. We also find that the OPs wrote letter dated 31.07.2007 Appendix F to Architect of complainant, which is on the record. The OPs vide this letter claimed the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was due from complainant to OPs. It is stated in it that completion of finishing touches at complainant's house has been done, as per the instructions and as per the list. Even otherwise, stand of OPs is that the construction was completed by them in the year 2006. The OPs also invited complainant to visit the above mentioned house to check the work done. But neither complainant nor her attorney alongwith architect visited the above said house for checking the work done by the OPs nor released the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to OPs as claimed in above letter. The complainant relied upon letter of Architect to OP no.1 Annexure 9 to appendix H regarding deficiencies in the construction. The OPs denied this letter being Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 18 ever written by architect of complainant to OP no.1. We find that complainant failed to prove on record any postal receipt/courier receipt to establish it on the record that this letter was actually sent to OP no.1 by her. The counsel for the OPs argued that as per payment of schedule Annexure-II, the payments would be released, once the architects i.e. Mr. Harpreet Singh or Mr. Ahsutosh Handa and first party would be satisfied with the progress of the work, as mentioned in the schedule. It is, thus, evident that complainant released the major amounts, through her architect to OPs on the satisfaction of her architect with the construction of the house raised by the OPs step by step and only amount of Rs.10 lakhs is still due from the complainant to the OPs for the above said construction. It is further argued that the valuer of complainant visited the above said house in the year 2008, after one year of letter appendix 'F' written by Sandeep Khullar OP no.1 to Mr. Ashutosh Handa Architect of complainant and took some photographs regarding deficiency in construction raised by the OPs, which stands rebutted on the record by the evidence of OPs, vide affidavit of valuer Ex.RW-3/1 and report Ex.R-1.
12. The complainant has also claimed the amount of Rs.5 lakhs, as she could not occupy the house in time and could not enjoy the residence in her house. We repel this submission of counsel for the complainant, as we have already held that there is no delay on the part of OPs, as discussed above. The complainant herself pleaded in his complaint that she is an NRI and is not residing in Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 19 India. The complainant has not proved on record any evidence for her entitlement of Rs.5 lakhs. Consequently, there is no question of claiming any compensation/rent from OPs, when she herself has been living abroad and not in India.
13. As a result of our above discussions, we find that amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is still due from complainant to OP, which became the bone of contention of this case between the parties. The OPs are at liberty to recover it from complainant by filing recovery suit before competent Forum and they can invoke the provision of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 in that regard thereat. The complainant could not establish her entitlement to various amounts, as pleaded in the complaint by means of independent and cogent evidence on the record. The complainant relied upon report of his expert Verma & Associates, but she has not tendered her affidavit nor affidavit of her above valuer on the record to prove her claim. On the other hand, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of OP no.1 Sh.Sandeep Khullar Ex.RW-1/1, affidavit of Sh. Des Raj Khullar OP no.2 Ex.RW- 2/1 and affidavit of Sh. R.D. Sharma Ex.RW-3/1 on the record to disprove the version of the complainant. Hence, the report of valuer of complainant Ex.C-4 stands rebutted by the evidence of the OPs.
14. As a result of our above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in this case. The complaint is, thus, found without any merits and the same is ordered to be dismissed.
Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2008 20
15. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 02.05.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties under rule.
16. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (J.S. GILL) MEMBER May 11, 2016.
(MM)