DELHI VIDYUT BOARD Vs. COL GURCHARANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has filed a complaint under Sec.17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O. Ps.

(2.) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had engaged services of the O. Ps. in the year 1990 for constructing a house on the plot belonging to him bearing No. A-12, Sector 40, NOIDA. As agreed between the complainant and the opposite parties, the O. Ps. were to construct one room, one kitchen, one bath room and boundary wall on the plot in question as per terms and conditions as detailed in Para 3 of the complaint. O. P. No.1/mr. Lizu Barbara had assured the complainant that he would personally be supervising the work and that the same would be executed to his entire satisfaction through his concern M/s. Krishna Builders and Developers/o. P. No.2 which is based at NOIDA. O. P. Nos.3 and 4 being partners of O. P. No.2 were to carry out the construction and the payment was agreed to be made directly to O. P. No.2. However, in contravention of the agreement between the complainant and the O. Ps. , the progress of the construction work was very slow and unsatisfactory and the behaviour of O. P. No.3 Mr. Babu Lal, who was in charge of the construction job of the building, was very harsh and rude towards the complainant. Since the complainant was dissatisfied with the progress of the construction of his house, he contacted O. P. No.1 in his office on 22.3.1991 to remind him that as per agreement the building had to be completed by 28.2.1991 and since the O. Ps. had failed to adhere to the terms and conditions settled between the parties, the complainant was not prepared to suffer further until and unless the O. Ps. were bound by some penalty clause to be introduced in the agreement. Upon persistence of the complainant, O. P. No.1/shri Lizu Barbara called O. P. No.4/shri Chauhan to his office, who at the instance of O. P. No.1 gave an undertaking in writing dated 22.3.1991 that the house of the complainant would be completed in all respects by 12.4.1991, failing which he would be liable to pay Rs.1,000/- per day to the complainant w. e. f.12.4.1991 till the date of completion of the house. However, even after the said undertaking given by O. P. No.4, neither the pace of the construction of the house was accelerated nor was the house completed despite the fact that the O. Ps. had been informed that the inspection date of NOIDA Authorities for obtaining completion certificate was fast approaching. Since the said inspection was due on 2.5.1991, for issuance of completion certificate, the complainant had no other alternative but to complete the construction work of the house himself by 1.5.1991 and as such had to make local purchases of sanitary and electrical materials on his own, as well as, pay the labour charges and as such had to spend an amount of over Rs.40,000/- from his own pocket, in addition to the payments made to the O. Ps. for the timely completion of the house. Thereafter the complainant vide letter dated 22.5.1991 addressed to O. Ps. had protested against the whole state of affairs and also sought the refund of the amount spent by him on completing the house on his own, as well as, penalty in terms of undertaking dated 22.3.1991. The complainant had also requested O. P. No.1 to obtain the completion certificate. But depsite repeated reminders in writing and personal visits to the office/residence of the O. Ps. , no heed was paid to the requests of the complainant who being a heart patient had to undergo untold misery and harassment at the hands of the O. Ps. Ultimately the complainant has filed a complaint before this Commission praying for directions to the O. Ps. to pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- per day as penalty w. e. f.12.4.1991 to 10.6.2001 amounting to Rs.60,000/- together with interest, as well as, refund of the amount of Rs.40,876/- (with interest) spent by him from his own pocket towards the completion of the house. The complainant has also prayed for the refund of the amount of Rs.858/- paid to the NOIDA authorities as extension fee for not having completed the construction of the house in time, as well as, for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment undergone by him on account of unfair trade practice and deficient services rendered by the O. Ps. together with cost of the present proceedings.

(3.) The complaint is resisted by O. P. Nos.3 and 4 only. O. P. No.3 in its reply/written version has raised a number of preliminary objections.