VEENA JAIN Vs. PUSHPA BUILDERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this complaint, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 9,11,820 alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP inas much as that she could not put the shop purchased by her in use because opposite party (hereinafter referred to as OP ) despite assurance did not remove the platform built inside the shop.

(2.) COMPLAINANT is the owner/allottee in possession of the shop bearing Unit No. A -1, Ground Floor, Harbans Bhavan -1, Nangal Rai, New Delhi -45. She had purchased the said shop from the OP vide agreement dated December 27, 1986 executed between the complainant and the OP. At the time of delivering the possession of the shop, the OP had represented and assured the complainant as well as her husband that the platform built and raised by the OP inside the said shop shall be removed and lifted by the OP very soon for providing the light and air to the basement portion under the shop of the complainant. The said platform measures 46" in length, 21" in breadth and 10 " in height. As a result of the existence of this platform, an area measuring 7.00 sq. ft. fell short of the actual area and, therefore, the complainant completely deprived of the use of the said shop. The said platform so constructed is in the form of a rectangular square. Right from the day the said shop had been purchased by the complainant, she could not use the same and is thus lying closed for want of proper area, space in the shop and, therefore, the OP is liable to refund the entire price paid by the complainant with interest @ 24% p.a. and cumulative interest accrued thereupon. The OP is also liable to reimburse the complainant on account of house tax paid by the complainant to the MCD. The complainant also claims the compensation/damages for amount of Rs. 1,00,000. OP had issued a demand notice -cum -letter to re -enter the shop premises dated 13.6.1995 whereby a sum of Rs. 57,152 had been demanded from the complainant. The OP is itself faulty in committing the breach of those clauses as such the OP is not entitled to take advantage of them. The services required to be rendered by the OP have not been rendered. Complainant has also alleged that demand notice dated 13.6.1995 is absolutely unjust, unwarranted and illegal. The OP had received the amounts much more than the cost of the shop mentioned in the Purchase Agreement dated 27.12.1986. Though the OP has mentioned the super area at 114.75 sq. ft., yet the carpet area after deduction of the unauthorisedly raised platform by the OP in the said shop comes to 63.00 sq. ft.

(3.) DETAILS of breaches committed by the OP as alleged by the complainant are as under :