ARVIND K. SHAH vs CITY LIFTS (INDIA) LTD.

IT is noticed that the complaint herein has been filed in the year 1997 and processed thereafter by way of show-cause notice as has been served upon the O.Ps. in the year 1998. Affidavit of service has been filed which is in the Record and Proceedings, which show service was effected through post and zerox copy of Postal acknowledgement forms part of Affidavit. However, there is no response on the part of the O.Ps. either by way of filing appearance or consequently claim of the complainant remained un-challenged and uncontroverted.

THE complainant has also filed affidavit in support of passing the decree as also in support of the claim in the complaint. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the complaint. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- being the expenses which the complainant was required to spend over the treatment of his wife for injury which she sustained because of deficiency in services on the part of O.P. in installing the lift at the residential place of the complainant.

It is noticed that the complainant is a resident of a house at Pleasant Palace situated at Borivli, one of the Western suburbs of Greater Mumbai and job was entrusted upon to the O.P. for installation of lift to the said building, the wife of the complainant was using the said lift and was about to get into the same, accident caused because of the door of the lift remained open although the lift proceeded ahead.

IN paragraph 2 of the complaint this is what is averred : Within three months of the lifts being commissioned, on Sunday, 5th May, 1996 at about 17.45 hours, the complainant''s wife fell down from the second floor lift well while trying to enter the lift because the lift moved upwards even though the doors were open. She fell into the lift shaft right from the second floor to the ground floor causing serious injuries. The complainant''s wife, therefore, had to be hospitalised and is even now undergoing treatment. It is noticed that thereafter the matter was reported to all concerned authorities including the O.Ps.

BECAUSE of injury sustained, the wife of the complainant was required to be hospitalised and claim in the complaint pertains to the expenses which required to meet for the treatment of his wife for the injuries which she sustained in the mishap. The complainant has made reference to the correspondence which came to be exchanged including the notice of the Advocates. The complainant also made reference to the report rendered by the concerned authority such as Inspector of the Lifts regarding the faulty job which was done in the installation of the lift O.Ps. duly noticed, but they have not chosen to appear either by filing Affidavit or Written Statements. Consequently, the case and claim of the complainant remained unchallenged. As required under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, O.Ps. are provided opportunity for the reasons best known to them, have not availed of the same. Since the claim of the complainant has not been challenged or controverted, we accept the case as made out by the complainant which is also supported by contemporaneous evidence including viz., correspondence which came to be exchanged soon after the mishap, the report of the concerned authority, etc. Hence the order. ORDER 1. Claim in the complaint allowed. 2. O.P. ordered and directed to pay Rs. 5,50,000/- towards compensation being cost of treatment, etc. to the complainant. 3. O.P. shall pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realisation. 4. Office to furnish copies of the order to the parties.

Complaint allowed.