TRISHLA BUILDERS THROUGH ITS PARTNER/ MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAC, ZIRAKPUR Vs. SUSHILA SHARMA W/O B D SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition Nos.950 & 951 of 2014 have been filed by the petitioner Trishala Builders against the order dated 06.11.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the Sate Commission') passed in appeal No.523 of 2011 & 484 of 2011 and revision petition No.1893 of 2014 has been filed by the complainant Smt. Sushila Sharma against the same order dated 06.11.2013 of the State Commission, passed in Appeal No.523 of 2011. As these are cross-appeals, the parties shall be referred to as the complainant and the opposite party.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased the apartment no.263 on First Floor in Tower Hanogi Complex at "Trishla Plus Homes" at Peer Mushalla Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.34,54,500/- vide allotment letter dated 18.12.2007. Agreement was also executed between the parties on 18.12.2007. The apartment was of Gold Premium category. The complainant paid Rs.36,21,300/- to the opposite party as price of the apartment including an amount of Rs.1,18,000/- for additional items like kitchen partition with designer glass and Wall stone tiles in the drawing room and Rs.48,800/- as maintenance charges as well as refundable security etc. The opposite party had promised that very good material will be used for the construction of the apartment. The possession of the apartment was offered by the opposite party and the complainant occupied the apartment on 31.08.2009 but she was shocked to find that the apartment was incomplete in all respects and there were many lapses and deficiencies in the construction as well as in the material used by the opposite party. The apartment was not worth living. The complainant brought the lapses in the notice of the opposite party, who assured for the removal of all the defects without any delay. But the opposite party did not remove the lapses as well as the defects as per its assurance and as per the agreement. The opposite party instead of removing the defects deliberately disconnected the electricity supplies connection of the apartment on 6.1.2010 when the complainant had reached the apartment from Shimla with her family members. The opposite party was supposed to maintain regular supply of electricity and water to the flat as per agreement. The complainant made an application on 7.1.2010 to the Police under the compelling circumstances. The complainant then First Appeal no.523 of 2011 5approached the S.S.P. Mohali and made an application dated 8.1.2010 to him and the copy of the same was also sent to the opposite party. To counter the letter dated 8.1.2010, the opposite party sent a back dated letter dated 5.1.2010 to the complainant vide which a demand of Rs.1,50,779/- on account of maintenance charges, security for maintenance and charges for repainting of external walls was raised. The opposite party had not raised such demand from any other allottee. The complaint was filed by the appellant alleging the above defects in the apartment as well as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent with the prayer that the respondent may be directed to pay Rs.6,00,000/- for the repair/removal of the defects, Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

(3.) Upon notice reply was filed by the respondent. It was stated by the respondent that the appellant had purchased a normal apartment and not gold premium apartment. Extra amount was charged from the appellant as she sought some additional features and materials for the apartment over and above the agreement. The entire work was done to the satisfaction of the appellant and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The appellant had occupied the apartment in August, 2009 and at that time the apartment was complete in all respect. It was further pleaded by the respondent that it had constructed 312 apartments out of which 240 apartments have already been sold and occupied by the purchasers. No First Appeal no.523 of 2011 6other customer has made any complaint against the construction as well as facilities provided by the respondent except the appellant. Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their contentions.