Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Seema Chandra – Complainant
versus
M/s. Magnum Interiors
Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.1209 of 2015
Decided on 5.5.2022
For the Complainant:Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, Ms. Mahima Bhardwaj and Mr. Nikhil Jaiswal, Advocates
For the Opp. Parties:Ms. K. Iyer and Mr. C.R.D. Biswas, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Non-payment - If the complainant did not make payment according to time schedule fixed under the contract, then delay in completion of the work cannot be attributed to the opposite parties.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.12(1)(a)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1)(a)] – Services – Real Estate – Ancillary Services – Interior Works – Timeline of Completion of – Non adherence to time Schedule by Complainant at any stage – Nonpayment by Complainant – No deficiency can be fastened on the OP’s - The complainant gave contract to the opposite party for interior works on 01.05.2012, giving 220 days time for completion of the work i.e. up to 07.01.2013. The complainant did not adopt the time schedule, according to the scheme of DLF Ltd. at any of the stage. At the time of contract, the period of completion of interior work was up to 31.07.2012 as provided by DLF ltd., while the complainant provided time up to 07.01.2013. If DLF Ltd. is charging penalty for delay in anterior works then, opposite parties cannot be held liable for it - If the complainant did not make payment according to time schedule fixed under the contract, then delay in completion of the work cannot be attributed to the opposite parties - Clause-1 of Obligations of Mrs. C under the contract dated 01.05.2012 provides for 24 hours access to the flat to the opposite parties. After obtaining “Occupation Certificate” on 07.09.2011, DLF Ltd. started handing over possession to the buyers of the flats. Due to which, the working hours and access to the flat has been reduced to 12 hours. In such circumstance it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party – Compliant dismissed. [Paras 6 to 9]
Result: Compliant dismissed.
ORDER
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant and Ms. K. Iyer, Advocate, for the opposite parties.
2. Mrs. Seema Chandra has filed above complaint, for directing M/s. Magnum Interior Private Limited and Mr. Rahul Kalhan, to pay (i) Rs.70/- lacs (i.e. advance, penalty and interest up to 31.01.2015) with interest @24% compounded quarterly from the date of filing the complaint till the date of refund, (ii) Rs.9228793/- (i.e. actual damages) with interest @24% compounded quarterly from the date of filing the complaint till the date of refund, (iii) Rs.64/- lacs (damages, penalty and interest up to 31.01.2015) with interest @24% compounded quarterly from the date of filing the complaint till the date of refund, (iv) Rs.5.5/- lacs, as cost of litigation and (v) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The complainant stated that she booked Flat No.-616-B, in “Magnolias”, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, built by M/s. DLF Universal Limited, which was delivered to her in semi-finished condition as according to the terms of allotment, the complainant was to get interior work done at her own level. M/s. Magnum Interior Private Limited was company registered under the Companies, Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of Interior/finishing works of the buildings. The complainant approached the opposite parties for interior works in the aforesaid flat. After examining the flats, the opposite parties agreed to do interior works for Rs.11529300/-, within period of 220 days. They entered in to contract dated 01.05.2012, specifying the terms and conditions and specification of works to be done. The complainant paid Rs.57.5/- lacs to the opposite parties for purchase of materials etc. However, the opposite parties did not carry out the work in time lines as promised in the contract dated 01.05.2012, under which they had to finish the work up to 06.12.2012 but they carried out very little work in a haphazard manner till then. M/s. DLF Universal Limited wrote a letter dated 16.10.2012, stating therein that in order to avail the benefit of Move-in-Rebate, the Interior works had to be finished till 31.10.2012. From 01.11.2012, M/s. DLF Universal Limited would charge delayed penalty @ Rs.125000/- per month plus service tax. M/s. DLF Universal Limited further put a condition for payment of remaining amount as mentioned in the contract, on completion of anterior works. Due to no-completion of interior work in the above flat, the complainant was prevented to pay remaining instalments and was required to pay interest on the balance amount. The opposite parties did not do any work till October, 2012, in spite of extracting Rs.57.5/- lacs. The complainant then asked to return her money with interest and penalty due to inordinate delay in completion of the work. Then the opposite parties assured to complete construction works within 2-3 months, failing which they would pay penalty, interest and damages. The complainant agreed for the proposal of the opposite parties and accordingly a fresh contract was executed on 11.11.2014 between the parties. The opposite parties also handed over Cheque No.633420 dated 31.01.2015 for Rs.60/- lacs to the complainant. The opposite parties, however, again could not compete the interior works till 31.01.2015 and gave another Cheque No.633495 dated 12.05.2015 for Rs.10/- lacs. These cheques were issued towards the refund of Rs.57.5/- lacs with interest. Above cheques were presented for encashment on 20.04.2015 and 12.05.2015 but were dishonoured by the concerned bank on 21.04.2015 and 15.05.2015 respectively. Due to delay in completion of the work, M/s. DLF Universal Limited raised a very high demand of Rs.4417500/- as penalty and Rs.4811293/- as interest on 16.06.2015. The complainant was suffering from financial crunch due to Kidney ailment of her husband. The complainant got valued the works done by opposite parties through
