Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the opposite party on the allegations that he wanted to buy a three bed room flat for his family. He had visited the Ops and had checked their sample flat. The complainant after giving the assurance and promises of the opposite party that an exact replica of the sample flat would be given to the complainant agreed to pay a flat in the Gilco Towers. As per the terms and conditions settled between the parties, the exact replica of the sample flat qua the flooring and wooden work and other material was to be given to the complainant. The complainant made full payment as was allotted Apartment No. J-203, Second Floor vide their letter F1-0170 dated 13.12.2010. He was given the possession of the flat on 12.1.2011 and was also issued a No Due Certificate. The complainant had spent all his life savings in the said flat but was shocked to see that the flat sold to him was nothing like the sample flat with regard to woodwork and material used in flooring. One side of the modular kitchen as shown in the sample flat was totally missing and assurance was given by the opposite party to the complainant that the specifications of the flat will be according to the sample flat but in fact the OP used cheap flooring tiles and very poor quality and colour in wood work. Complete black granite strip on the flooring and FIRST APPEAL NO. 952 OF 2013 skirting was missing from the flat given to the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party number of times to get the dispute resolved but to no avail, rather the office of the opposite party asked the complainant to pay an extra amount of Rs. 24,550/- as security in lieu of electricity connection whereas the complainant had already cleared all the dues and no due certificate was issued on 10.1.2011. The Ops had not acted according to their assurance, therefore, there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Legal notice was given to the Op but no reply was given. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs on account of defective material used/cost difference, Rs. 20,000/- expenses incurred to resolve this issue by visiting the office of the Ops, mental pain and agony Rs. 2 lacs, legal expenses Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 7,45,000/-.

6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OP, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint as referred above.

7. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that in case there was any defective material used in the construction of the flat then it should have been pointed out immediately after taking out the possession and for a period of 5½ months, the complainant did not make any complaint. The complainant has filed the complaint seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs but its justification has not been given. Even that report of the Local Commissioner has not justified the use of any sub- standard material and Local Commissioner in his report has also mentioned that there is no difference of the material used or specifications of the flat except Cabinet at the upper level is missing, which was not a part of the service contract entered into between the complainant and the appellant-Company. The cabinet in the kitchen has been provided as per the sanctioned plan and approved by the Architect. The claim of the complainant based upon sample flat is unsustainable and not enforceable. Moreover, there was no rationale to award Rs. 3 lacs as compensation for the alleged deficiency and Rs. 1 lac as compensation. So far as Woodwork is concerned instead of MDF Board cabinets, Pre-Laminated MDF Board Cabinets has been given, which is more costly then the agreed, therefore, it was FIRST APPEAL NO. 952 OF 2013 submitted that the order passed by the learned District Forum is against the facts on the record; it is liable to be set-aside.

8. In case we go through the pleadings of the parties, the complainant had applied for the flat and construction of those was almost finished. He checked it and he was allotted flat No. J-203 vide letter dated 13.12.2010 and vide letter dated 12.1.2011 possession was allotted.

9. Now it has been pleaded by the complainant in the complaint that the flat given to him was not according to the sample flat. Ex. R-1 is the handing/taking over of Gilco Towers Flat No. J-203 in which detail of Civil Work which includes flooring, ceiling, fitting, kitchen, furnishing etc. has been given. As per the allegations in the complaint, it was pleaded that the wood work and the material used in flooring and one side kitchen cabinet was incomplete, tiles used were of cheap quality. The wood work was of very poor quality and colour. The complete black granite strips on the flooring and skirting was missing.

10. In this case the Local Commissioner was appointed to assess what are the defects in the work of the flat allotted to the complainant, his report is Ex. R-2. He has mentioned that in the living area a strip of black granite and skirting given for design was not provided. Wooden shutters used in the sample flat for wardrobes are deco painted MDF Board whereas in the flat in question these are pre-laminated MDF board. On the left side of the kitchen, one cabinet above the counter has not been provided. After assessing this report, the learned District Forum came to the conclusion that there is no FIRST APPEAL NO. 952 OF 2013 evidence to give the findings with regard to any defect in the quality, specifications and other material used in the flat of the complainant except that in the living area strip of black granite and skirting has not been provided and for that purpose a sum of Rs. 3 lacs has been allowed. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the appellant has pointed our attention towards the photographs of the kitchen filed in the appeal file in which the sample flat kitchen and the kitchen in the flat in question has been given. It is clear that wooden box on the left side in the upper area is missing. So far as living area is concerned and skirting and the black strip has not been given. Photographs of the sample flat as well as the flat in question has been given by the Local Commissioner, which shows black strip of granite in the living area, which is missing in the sample flat as well as skirting. Against this report of the Local Commissioner, no objection was filed by the Ops, therefore, now they cannot dispute that the skirting was provided and only strip of black granite was not provided. Otherwise in the flooring of the living/dining room, vitrified tiles were used as in the sample flat. Since there is no specific agreement, which was required to be executed between the parties as per PAPRA and in case no such specific agreement has come on between the parties then certainly, the specifications should have been according to the sample flat. Therefore, the counsel for the appellant has not been able to rebut this preposition that in the flat allotted to the complainant one cabinet in the left side of the kitchen is missing and in the living area strip of black granite and skirting was missing.