Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/27/2016

Dr. Pratibha Khosla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Abdul Khan - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. Dr. Pratibha Khosla c/o House No.1285, Ranjit Nagar, Kharar, District Mohali.

2. Akash Khosla c/o House No.1285, Ranjit Nagar, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab.

……Revision Petitioners/complainants

V e r s u s

1. Abdul Khan, r/o House NO.1100, Sector 56, Chandigarh email
2. A & H Construction Co. (103/2012), www.ahconstruction.in, Phone No. 0172-5018437, email  
3. Sh. Rajinder Singh Kalsi, Senior Architect cum Local Commissioner, Chandigarh Administration, U.T., Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

                     .... Respondents/Opposite Parties.                                     

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:      

Dr. Pratibha Khosla, Revision Petitioner No.1 in person and on behalf of Revision Petitioner No.2.

Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

None for respondent No.3.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

               This Revision Petition has been filed against orders dated 04.07.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), in Consumer Complaint No.06 of 2015 with a request to set aside the said order dated 04.07.2016 being illegal and further requested to accept Application No.2 of 26.04.2016 in toto, vide which, Revision Petitioners requested to take appropriate action including under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Sh. Rajinder Singh Kalsi, Senior Architect cum Local Commissioner.

2.         The brief facts of the case are that the complainants/Revision Petitioners are the sole owners of residential plot No.337, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh, who purchased the said plot for the sum of Rs.38,50,000/- through open auction, whose last date of construction without any extension fee is 07.12.2014. The construction job was entrusted to one Sh. Abdul Khan r/o House No.1100, Sector 56, Chandigarh and A & H Construction Co. through Partner Hasina. The construction work at the site i.e. plot No.337, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh lasted for less than one month i.e. from 31.01.2014 to 26.02.2014 only. The complainants further stated in their complaint that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 despite receipt of agreed payments, in advance, delivered a poor quality construction, poor workmanship using spurious goods & services and misrepresented and without compliance to the sanctioned building plans. The complainants felt that there was huge deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. With regard to the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the complaint was filed on 05.01.2015, before the District Forum.

3.         Later on, the complainants filed an application before the Forum for appointing Sh. Kapil Setia, Chief Architect, U.T. Administration, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh as Local Commissioner for submitting detailed report of stage wise work done, stage wise work pending, stage wise building violations from sanctioned building plans including structural notes alongwith details regarding their compoundability, non-compoundability, composition fee, fine leviable etc. at each stage of work (including in digging (stage 1), filling of all foundations (stage 2), completion of work upto DPC level including laying of plinth bend (stage 3) and superstructure (Stage 4) as per the terms of contract dated 27.01.2014 alongwith site digital photographs.

4.         The said application has been opposed by Opposite Parties.

5.         The Forum went through the record and heard the arguments raised by complainant No.1 in person and learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

6.         The learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the complainants have submitted about 246 pages in their paper-book and also filed a copy of the CD alongwith rejoinder raising several complicated issues. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties further submitted that the Opposite Parties filed a suit for recovery of Rs.719401/- against complainant No.2 alongwith relief for permanent injunction in respect of the same subject matter and the questions involved in the complaint and civil suit are the same. He further argued that SDO (Buildings) office of the Estate Office, U.T. Chandigarh already had given a certificate dated 25.02.2014/26.02.2014, Annexure R-19, in accordance with which measurement work checked at site was found correct and construction upto plinth level is in accordance with the sanctioned plan as reported by the field staff on 24.02.2014. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties further submitted that complainants have terminated the contract with the Opposite Parties and there is absolutely no requirement for appointment of the Local Commissioner at this stage.             However, the Forum, after considering the above arguments carefully, came to the conclusion that if Local Commissioner visits the site and gives a technical report about the stage wise work done, stage wise work pending, stage wise building violations etc., it would enable the Forum to reach at a just conclusion of the case. Further, the Forum was of the opinion that the Opposite Parties have nothing to suffer because the Local Commissioner shall visit the site in their presence or in the presence of their representative. The Forum further opined that it was a fit case for appointment of Local Commissioner, however, request of the complainants for appointing Sh.Kapil Setia, Chief Architect, U.T. Administration, Chandigarh, as a Local Commissioner was not accepted, rather the Forum opined that a Local Commissioner should be appointed by the Forum after inviting the list of reputed Architects of Chandigarh from both the sides. Accordingly, the Forum allowed the application for appointment of Local Commissioner.

7.         The Forum in continuation of the above order dated 11.05.2015, vide its order dated 08.06.2015 examined the names of Architect supplied by both the parties for appointment as Local Commissioner and came to the conclusion that Sh.Rajinder Singh Kalsi, Senior Architect, U.T. Administration, Chandigarh be appointed as Local Commissioner and his fee was assessed at Rs.10,000/- (tentatively). Even the copies of the relevant documents alongwith application for appointment of Local Commissioner sent to Sh.Rajinder Singh Kalsi and direction was given to him to visit the spot after giving due notices to the parties/counsels and to submit a detailed report of stage wise work done, stage wise work pending, stage wise building violations from sanctioned building plans including structural notes alongwith details regarding their compoundability, non-compoundability, composition fee, fine leviable, etc. at each stage of work (including in digging (stage 1), filling of all foundations (stage 2), completion of work upto DPC level including laying of plinth bend (stage 3) and superstructure (Stage 4) as per the terms of contract dated 27.01.2014 alongwith site digital photographs. The Forum further directed that the report of the Local Commissioner be awaited for 03.07.2015.

8.         Vide its order dated 05.08.2015, the Forum has observed that report of the Local Commissioner has been received and the case was listed for 25.08.2015 for filing objections, if any, against the report of the Local Commissioner. A bare perusal of the order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Forum clearly reveals that the complainants filed their objections to the report of the Local Commissioner and Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that he did not want to file any objections. Thereafter, on 30.03.2016, arguments on the objections to the report of the Local Commissioner were heard.

9.         The Forum vide its order dated 04.07.2016, dismissed both the applications filed by the complainants on 26.04.2016. The first one has been filed by the complainants regarding the request to pass interim orders under Section 13 (3B) of Consumer Protection Act for giving decision on the complainants’ objections of dated 07.09.2015 and the second application filed by complainants regarding request to take appropriate action under Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act against Sh.Rajinder Singh Kalsi, Senior Architect cum Local Commissioner. In the said application, complainants sought refund of two third of the remuneration paid to the Senior Architect cum Local Commissioner alongwith interest so as to get pending work of Senior Architect cum Local Commissioner completed as per law by some other competent officer higher in rank to the SDO(B) of Chandigarh Administration.

10.        We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of both the parties. On the application moved by the complainants, Senior Architect was appointed as Local Commissioner. In the said case, report was asked from him and basic report was given by the Local Commissioner. After going through the report given by the Local Commissioner, we are of the view that prima-facie there appears to be nothing wrong in the said report. The Local Commissioner was appointed to tell the basic defects, if any, and accordingly, in fact, he has given a very detailed report on the issues raised. The Local Commissioner has given his observations on every aspect of construction. Even, otherwise, it is, no doubt, true that the proceedings before the Forum are summary in nature and accordingly, objections filed by the complainants does not hold any merit. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is nothing wrong in the order, under challenge, dated 04.07.2016 passed by the Forum.

11.        Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Forum has rightly passed the order dated 04.07.2016.  Hence, the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.        For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition filed by complainants, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed.

13.        Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

25.11.2016                                               Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Sd/-

                                                                         (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

rb