(1.) This complaint has been filed by the complainant Shashi Malhotra against opposite party Ashok Kumar.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant entered into a collaboration agreement dated 05.04.2011 for the purpose of constructing/developing her property. As per the agreement, the land was to be provided by the complainant and the complete cost of constructing the property was to be borne by opposite party. In due course of time, the complainant observed major structural flaws with the construction of the premises which were duly pointed out to the opposite party on various occasions. Later on, the complainant shifted into the premises, however, the premises was completely unfit for habitation owing to the gross negligence and hazardous construction methods adopted by the opposite party. Complainant engaged structural consultant who in his report dated 02.06.2011 stated that the slab had been deflected beyond the allowable limit of 20mm and suggested certain alternatives to correct the roof slab. In September, 2011, opposite party constructed the ground floor, upper ground floor and first floor without any rectification to the premises structure as per the agreement. In October, 2011, opposite party rescinded the agreement by abandoning the construction of the premises. On 05.10.2011 complainant completed the ground floor and upper ground floor using her life savings in order to make the premises worth living and incurred an expense of Rs.13,05,712/-. In 2014, the complainant repaired the construction of first floor for an additional amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. The circumstances created by opposite party caused inconvenience to the complainant as she along with her family had to obtain temporary accommodation for a period of one year during the duration of the construction of the premises. Opposite party left the entrance to the elevator shaft on the terrace covered with only a thin iron sheet, as a result of this negligent conduct, the complainant's daughter-in-law died by falling through the iron sheet on 30.01.2013. After the death, inquest proceedings were conducted u/s 176 Cr.P.C. however, the case was closed on 06.05.2014 as no foul play suspected. An architect in his report dated 20.09.2014 confirmed that numerous cracks appeared in the walls of the premises as opposite party failed to sufficiently waterproof plaster of the walls. Another architect report dated 14.11.2016 stated that the premises is unfit for cohabitation.
(3.) The complaint has been opposed by the opposite party by filing the written statement. It has been stated by the opposite party that as per clause 28 of the agreement, disputes or any differences shall be referred to an arbitrator if the matter is not resolved mutually between the parties. Thus the State Commission does not have jurisdiction.