Back
2005 (3) CPR 463
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
R.S. Mongia, President; C.P. Budhiraja & Mrs. Jasbir Kapoor, Members
Narinder Pal, Managing Director M/s. Bison Builders & Properties (P) Ltd. & Ors.—Appellants
versus
Ravikiran Jain—Respondent
Appeal No. 150 of 2000
Decided on 30-9-2005
Counsel for the parties :
For the Appellants :Shri G.S. Sandha-walia, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shri Kunal Dawa, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Non-providing of lift in building by the builder/developer which he had agreed to provide by stipulated date constitutes deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12 and 17 — Deficiency in service on part of builder — Complainant purchased property located on fourth floor in building built by appellant — Appellant had agreed to provide fully operational Elevator (Lift) by 31-10-1998 and in case of his failure was to pay Rs. 1.5 lakh to complainant — Lift was not got installed — Dist. Forum allowed
claim and directed appellant builder to pay Rs. 1.5 lakhs with 18% interest from 31-10-1998 till payment or till lift was provided — Appeal — Defence plea was that all purchasers in building had not paid entire consideration — Life was to be provided as one of the amenities and non-providing of that service constituted deficiency in service — As per agreement no cost was to be borne by any of purchaser for providing them lift — Dist. Forum rightly held appellant guilty of deficiency in service — Lift provided during pendency of appeal — For the inconvenience for seven years, complainant held entitled to compensation/damages of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid within two months failing interest at 9% to accrue.(Paras 6 to 8)
Result : Appeal disposed of.
R.S. Mongia, President — This is an appeal by the opposite parties before the District Forum (four in number) against the order of the District Forum dated 4.1.2000 by which the complaint filed by Ravi Kiran Jain was allowed in the following terms:-
“So we accept this complaint with costs and in terms of the agreement Ex. C-2 we grant Rs.1,50,000/- as damages alongwith interest @ 18% from 31.10.1998 till its payment or till to provide the fully operational Elevator. The interest has been allowed as compensation for mental tension,
harassment and for not proper use of the property purchased by the complainant for running his profession. Besides that
the opposite parties will pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of this complaint. The opposite parties have been directed to comply with the directions of this Forum within one month from the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost by registered post or in person under the rules. Record be consigned.”
2. The facts are not much in dispute, Ravi Kiran Jain, complainant, filed a complaint before the District Forum on 15.7.1999 with the allegation that he had purchased property measuring 446 sq. ft. located on the fourth floor in the building known as Kapilvastu situated in Civil Lines, Jalandhar, from opposite parties No.3 and 4 i.e. Lalit Bahri and Deepak Bahri, who were the owners of the property and had executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant. Mr. Narinder Puri, who was opposite party No. l, was the Managing Director of M/s. Bison Builders & Properties whereas opposite party No.2 was M/s. Bison Builders itself. It was the case of the complainant that at the time of effecting the sale and
delivery of the possession of the area purchased on the 4th floor of the building, opposite parties had agreed to provide
fully operational Elevator (Lift) by 31.10.1998. In fact, to straighten the matter, an agreement by the opposite parties (the present appellants) was also entered into with the complainant on 27.6.1998. Ex. C-2, that the lift will be provided by 3 lst October, 1998 failing which the opposite parties will pay a sum of Rs.1.5 lakh to the complainant. Detailed reference to Ex. C-2 will be made hereinafter. The opposite parties having failed to provide the lift by the stipulated date and even having failed to honour the agreement dated 27.6.1998 to pay Rs.1.5 lakh, the complaint was filed before the District Forum claiming Rs.3 lakh, including the agreed amount of Rs.1.5 lakh, as damages/compensation for causing inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Costs of the complaint were also claimed. As observed above, the complaint was allowed on 4.1.2000.
3. Hence the present appeal.
Opposite parties No. l, 2 and 4 had filed a combined reply to the complaint and separate reply on behalf of opposite party No.3 was filed. The preliminary objection by the opposite parties No. l, 2 and 4 as also by opposite party No.3 was taken which is in the following terms:-
“That the matter regarding the installation of the lift and the consequences that were to follow on account of the non-installation of the lift, had already been settled between the parties vide agreement dated 27.6.1998. In view of the said agreement and settlement between the parties, no complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, is maintainable.”
4. It was further stated in the reply that all the purchasers in the building had not paid the entire consideration and, therefore, the lift could not be provided. During the course of arguments it was also argued before the District Forum that the complainant was not a consumer. Further in view of the agreement dated 27.6.1998 between the parties, remedy, if any, lay before the civil court.
5. Before we proceed further in the matter it will be apposite to reproduce the agreement dated 27.6.1998, Ex.C-2 made between the parties:-
“This agreement is made this 27th day of June, 1998, at Jalandhar between Sh. Lalit Bahri and Sh. Deepak
