Home >> Core Services >> Gist
of Judgement
Gist of Judgement
|
|
Issue: Real Estate
–Deficiency in Service
Court : NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Judgment: 26/10/2005
Appeal No:- 2501 of 2004
(1) Delhi Cantonment Board; (2) S.K. Kapoor and Associates
vs.
(1) S.K. Kapoor and Associates; (2) Delhi Cantonment Board
Brief Facts:-
Complainant was allotted a shop in a commercial
complex on lease in auction - Complaint that complex is not provided
with basic facilities, such as water, toilets and electricity Deficiency
in service - State Commission held that such an act amounts to gross
deficiency in service and also held that complainant was in possession
of shop for period from 21.6.1995 to 8.5.1997 and, therefore, direction
to refund rent cannot be justified - Revision petition against -
Held, that maintenance of shop internally is to be done by allottee
while external facilities are to be provided by Cantonment Board
- As this was not provided, it is deficiency in service - Petitions
dismissed.
The Complainant was allotted a shop in a commercial
complex, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantonment, on lease in auction held
on 7.12.1994 by the Delhi Cantonment BoardThe lease deed was executed
on 21.6.1995 and possession of the shop was handed over on the same
date. The contention of the Complainant is that the complex is not
provided with the basic facilities, such as water, toilets and electricity.
His application to the DESU for grant of electric connection was
turned down for the reason that the complex was in unelectrified
area and hence the electric connection could not be sanctioned.
In addition to this, the Board has also not deposited the required
charges with the DESU for this purpose. Hence, feeling aggrieved
by the attitude of the Board in failing to provide the basic amenities,
the Complainant approached the District ForumThe Board did not contest
the matter before the District Forum. Hence, the District Forum
passed an ex-parte order Feeling aggrieved, the Board went in appeal
to the State Commission The State Commission maintained the contention
that complaint was not maintainable as this was a dispute between
a landlord and the tenant with regard to non-supply of electricity
and other facilities. In view of the discussion, the State Commission
directed the Appellant to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.35, 000/-
towards compensation and dismissed the appeal. Against that order
dated 8.10.2004 passed by the State Commission, Delhi, Delhi Cantonment
Board has preferred Revision Petition It is apparent that maintenance
of the shop internally is to be done by the allottee while the external
facilities are to be provided by the Cantonment Board. As this was
not provided, it is deficiency in service. Hence it cannot be held
that the Complainant is not consumer within the meaning of the Consumer
Protection Act this view of the above discussion, the revision petition
filed by the Cantonment Board was dismissed. With regard to the
revision petition filed by the Complainant, The court held that
the order passed by the State Commission cannot be said to be in
any way erroneous. The State Commission has directed refund of the
amount of Rs.35, 000/- even though the Complainant was in possession
of the shop. Admittedly, the said shop is transferred by the Complainant
during the pendency of these proceedings. In the result, both the
Revision Petitions were dismissed.
For
Full Judgment |
 |
|
