First Appeal No. 414 of 2014. Case: Estate Officer Vs Parveen Sharma. Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 414 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.R. Bansal, Advocate and For Respondents: Braham Sharma, Representative |
| Judges | Gurdev Singh, J. (President), Baldev Singh Sekhon and Surinder Pal Kaur, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12; Punjab Apartment Ownership Act 1995 - Sections 14, 3(j), 5(1) |
| Citation | II (2015) CPJ 127 (Punj.) |
| Judgement Date | February 02, 2015 |
| Court | Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Gurdev Singh, J. (President)
-
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party No. 3 against the order dated 6.3.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Dr. (Mrs.) Parveen Sharma, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to allow her to make use of the stilt area, as she had been doing earlier, for the sake of parking her car and to pay Rs. 25,000, as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony experienced by her, which was to include costs also. The complainant alleged, in her complaint, that she applied for purchase of a residential flat from the opposite parties on 1.1.2007 with a covered area of 1740 square feet and paid Rs. 2,52,500, vide cheque dated 15.1.2007 towards booking charges. As per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, flat was to be well furnished and facilities like lift, club, swimming pool and car parking were to be provided. The possession letter was issued to her on 3.6.2011 as per the terms and conditions of that Agreement and possession was also delivered. Since the date of possession she had been parking her car in the space provided for that purpose. However, from the last 15/20 days from the date of filing of the complaint, the opposite parties are not allowing her to park the car in that space; as a result of which she is facing a lot of inconvenience and mental tension. The opposite parties are not providing the parking space to her deliberately with the mala fide intention to cause mental tension and harassment to her. The same was done by the opposite parties in view of the two complaints filed by her against them in respect of the flat and the facilities. This illegal act on their part amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service; as a result of which she suffered mentally as well as physically. She issued legal notice dated 28.9.2013 through her Counsel but they did not pay any heed to her genuine request. She prayed for the issuance of the following directions to them:
"(i) to provide car parking facilities and other facilities as per allotment agreement dated 28.3.2007;
(ii) to pay Rs. 50,000, on account of mental agony and harassment; and
(iii) to pay Rs. 5,500, as legal charges for the forced litigation."
-
The complaint was contested by opposite party No. 3, whereas the other opposite parties did not appear before the District Forum in spite of their service and were proceeded against ex parte. Opposite party No. 3 in his written reply did not deny that the flat was got booked by the complainant after the payment of Rs. 2,52,500, as booking charges and that well furnished apartment with the facilities of lift, etc. was to be given. He also did not deny that the allotment agreement was executed and in pursuance thereof possession of the flat was given to the complainant. He also admitted the filing of the other complaints against him by the complainant regarding the flat in question. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, he pleaded that the complainant is trying to twist the facts of the case as only open car parking facility was provided to every flat owner, who had not purchased the covered car parking. The complainant never paid for covered car parking and without such payment she is claiming such covered car parking. She had been parking her car in open car parking and was never stopped from doing so. By the concealment of the facts, she managed to obtain the order dated 25.10.2013 and thereafter...
To continue reading
Request your trial