D.C.GUPTA vs PARASRAMPURIA ESTATE DEVELOPERS(P)LTD

THIS complaint has been filed by Shri D.C. Gupta against the opposite party claiming compensation for deficiencies in the nature of shortcoming in the manner of performance of construction of his flat in persuance of a contract at Bombay. The deficiencies are catalogued in the complaint. The opposite party the builder was noticed and appeared before us and filed his say.

ON 13.7.1990 after hearing both the sides, we passed an interim order. The order was passed since the opposite parly agreed to remove the deficiency in relation to the four items which arc as under:- (1) Leakages from ceiling which caused dampness to the rooms. (2) Geyser with proper electric and pipe connection in the kitchen. (3) The door of toilet was to be refixed, painted, glassed with handle alongwith locking device. (4) ONe mirror and soap trays in bath room was also to be provided.

By the said order, we had granted one month''s time to the opposite party to complete the aforesaid work at his own costs. It appears that the opposite party was slow in completing the aforesaid works and went on asking further time. In order to enable the opposite party to complete the agreed work, we extended the period from time to time. ON the last hearing i.e. on 8.11.90, we granted last chance to the opposite party to complete the remaining work which was not completed. We, therefore, adjourned the case and refixed it to-day at 3.00 p.m. at Bombay. We waited till 3.45 p.m. but none appeared for the opposite party although the learned Counsel for opposite party was present on the last hearing. Therefore, we proceed ex-parte against the opposite party and heard Slid D.C. Gupta, Complainant. Shri D.C. Gupta states that out of four items, mentioned above, the first item about leakages from the ceiling has not been satisfactorily completed by the opposite party. According to Shri Gupta some repairs were carried out by the opposite party but the leakage from the ceiling has not been stopped. Shri Gupta again submitted that as per the agreement, the opposite party had agreed to provide some amenities to his flat complex. He has annexed with his complaint a list of amenities which were to be provided by the opposite party as per the agreement.

In para 1, at the annexure is the amenities under the Head "Environmental Facilities in the Complex." On perusal of these facilities we find that they arc common facilities for the flat owners in the complex and not an exclusive facility to be provided to the complainant. Item No. 2, is under the Head "External details of the Building". On perusal of the description it shows that this is a general facility and docs not relate to the complainant alone. Item No. 3, is "Internal Structure Details". In Clause of the said item No. 3 a common stair case upto the first floor landing was to be of a marble and side faced with veneratex or any other suitable combination. According to the complainant this has not been done. We also find that this is a common facility to the flat owners in the complex. As regards the sub-items 2 and 3 of the Item No. 3, we are informed by Shri Gupta that these items have been completed by the opposite party. As regards the fittings in Item No. IV entrance doors consisting of post box fitting with chromium plate heavy duty aluminum fitting with locking devices were to be provided. Shri Gupta had stated that these items had been completed by him at his own cost amounting to Rs. 70/- We hold that the complainant is entitled to Rs. 70/- as compensation for this item. As regards Item No. V, we find that this is very vague and not clear, and hence are not inclined to consider for purpose of compensation. As regards the Item No. VI of bath room and toilet, according to Shri Gupta, this has been completed by the opposite party. Hence need not be considered. As regards Item No. VII electric wiring for providing A.C. in the bed room, Shri Gupta stated that he got it done at his own cost for Rs. 1300/- We find that Shri Gupta is entitled to get this amount from the opposite party as compensation. The next item No. VIII is as regards the "Antitermite treatment". Shri Gupta stated that although opposite party agreed to carry out anti-termite treatment, it has not been carried out. However, we find that we cannot substantiate this claim in absence of proof of not having been done by the builder, (the anti-termite treatment). As regards Item No. IX "Entertainment amenities", Shri Gupta has stated that in the contract, the opposite party was required to provide common V.C.R. facility to the flat owners which has not been so far provided. Only V.C.R has been provided. However, this complaint is general in nature for the complex and not for exclusive use of the complainant. Hence we do not consider it. The last item No. X is regarding the "water proofing". According to Shri Gupta, he has spent about Rs. 1800/- for carrying out water proofing to his chajjas which the opposite party had agreed to carry out as per the agreement and has not removed this deficiency. Hence we hold that complainant is entitled to receive compensation on this count.

AFTER hearing Shri Gupta and perusing the documents there is no reason for us lo disbelieve the complainant so far as the amount which he has spent for completing the item No. 3, Rs. 70/- Item No. 7, Rs. 1300/- and Rs. 1800/- for Item No. 10. Thus we believe that the complainant has spent Rs. 3170/- Under the agreement, the opposite party was bound to spend Rs. 3170/- on the relevant items. We find that the opposite party was legally bound under the contract to provide the amenities to the complainant at his cost. Failure on his part to provide the agreed amenities resulted in the shortcoming in the service of the opposite party which according to us is the deficiency. Hence we hold that the complainant is entitled to the compensation for the deficiency in the service in this case. As regards other items which are general in character concerning all the flat owners, we cannot decide these in the individual complaint filed by Shri Gupta. Had it been a complaint of all the flat owners in the collective manner, the context would have been different but since the complaint is made by Shri Gupta in his individual capacity, we would like to grant him reliefs concerning himself. Shri Gupta has stated that likely expenditure for stopping the leakage in the ceiling would be about Rs. 5000/- We find that despite our direction dated 13.7.90, and agreed to by the opposite party no efforts are made by the builder to stop the leakage in the ceiling. Under these circumstances, we would like to order the opposite party to make the payment of Rs. 5000/- to Shri Gupta to remove the deficiency in the matter of leakage in the ceiling. Shri Gupta has claimed an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs towards the compensation for his mental torture. We arc unable to calculate the amount for the mental torture as there is no material. However, we find that the complainant had to make lot of efforts to pursue the litigation; to chase the builder, collect papers and spend for the complaint. In the process, the complainant was required to pay Rs. 1000/- to the Commissioner for the inspection of the short comings in his flat. Moreover, the complainant was required to spend to typing zeroxing, travelling for the purposes of this complaint. It will meet the ends of justice if we calculate the cost at Rs. 4000/- Shri Gupta has stated that the opposite party has collected Rs. 15000/- from him, on 23.1.1989 towards the stamp duty for purposes of registration. It is further stated that till lo-day, ''no registration has been effected by the opposite party to transfer the flat in the name of the complainant. Under these circumstances, we find that the claim of the complainant for the refund of Rs. 15000/- is justified. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the version of the complainant remains un controverted before us to-day. We, therefore, pass the following ex-parte order:- ORDER

(i) The oPPosite Party M/s. ParsramPuria Estate DeveloPers Pvt. Ltd., Mittal Towers, A Wing, 3rd floor, Nariman Point, Bombay shall Pay 10 the comPlainant Rs. 3170/- towards the work which the comPlainant has carried out at his own exPenses. (ii) The oPPosite Party shall Pay Rs. 5000/- to the comPlainant towards the rePairs of the leakage in the ceiling. (iii) The oPPosite Party do Pay to the comPlainant an amount of Rs. 15000/- towards the refund of registration amount. (iv) The oPPosite Party do Pay Rs. 5000/- (Rs. 1000+''Rs. 4000) to the comPlainant towards the charges of Commissioner and the cost of this litigation. (v) The amount of Rs. 3170/- shall carry interest at the rate of 18% P.a. from the date of this order till realisation. (vi) The amount of Rs. 15000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 18% P.a. from the date of this order. The oPPosite Party shall Pay the total amount of Rs. 28170-00 to the comPlainant within a Period of three months from the receiPt of this order.

ComPlaint allowed with costs.