SAFEWAY BUILDERS P LTD Vs. MOHINDER MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order we shall dispose of application dated 26.2.1998, filed by the applicant - Safeway Buidler (P) Ltd. , praying therein that the order darted 13.10.1997, passed in Complaint Case No. C-116/96 - entitled Shri Mohidner Malik V/s. M/s. Safeway Builder Pvt. Ltd. , wherein the applicant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- i. e. Rs.2,25,000/- on account of water proofing operation to be carried out and Rs.1,00,000/- on account of damages to the respondent and his wife, be recalled/set aside.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application, lie in a narrow compass. The respondent Shri Mohinder Malik had filed a complaint under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), averring that he and his wife, Smt. Neelam Malik, jointly had purchased a storage space in the basement floor in the commercial property, known as 'safeway House', situated at 4, Local Shopping Centre, Prashant Vihar, Delhi, vide agreement dated 6th September, 1993, for a total consideration of Rs.8,95,200/-. It was stated that the possession of the abovesaid property was taken over by the respondents on 6th September, 1993, and thereafter the same was leased out to a person on a monthly rent of Rs.18,000/-. It was averred that the tenants, so inducted in that premises, started a lottery bazaar. It was alleged that in the first monsoon, following the taking over of possession, rain water entered the basement and there was heavy seepage from the side walls as well as from the floor of the space in question. It was stated that the party to whom the space in question was leased out approached the respondents, who in turn approached the applicant, but no action was taken by the applicant with the result the respondent filed a complaint in this Commission, claiming damages to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/-.

(3.) The claim of the respondent was resisted by the applicant and in the written statement/written version the applicant had taken certain preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint filed by the respondent. On merits it was stated that the complaint filed by the respondent was false, motivated, malafide and was liable to be dismissed. It was prayed that the complaint, filed by the respondent, be dismissed with special compensatory costs.