ANSAL PROPERTIES vs VIJAY RAJ MAHAJAN

RESPONDENT purchased a shop No. GF-69, Sushant Vyapar Kendra (S.V.K.) from the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 2,73,975. As per Clause 16 of the Sale Deed the respondent was entitled to apply for separate water connection. It is alleged that in spite of having received Rs. 8,000 from the respondent for installation of water connection the appellant did not provide the same and after some time offered to refund it by expressing its inability to provide water connection. On account of failure of the appellant in not providing the water connection the respondent alleged loss of Rs. 3,00,000 as he had intended to run a restaurant in the said shop.

FOR deficiency in service in not providing the water connection as agreed by the appellant, the appellant vide impugned order dated 30.12.2002 has been directed to refund the amount of Rs. 8,000 with 15% interest and pay damages of Rs. 20,000. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has directed this appeal. As is apparent from the term of the sale deed it was not obligatory upon the appellant to provide water connection and that was why the respondent approached the appellant for arranging the water supply in the shop as there were large number of shops in the complex which were without water connection and paid Rs. 8,000 for installation of the water connection. According to the appellant majority of the shopkeepers later on declined to get the water connection and only six shop owners were interested in getting the water connection and, therefore, it was not feasible to lay down the pipelines, disposal of water to the main sewer as it would involve lakhs of rupees.

In our view unless and until it was legal obligation of the appellant to provide the shop with water connection, the appellant was not liable to provide water connection and for not providing water connection it could not have been held guilty for deficiency in service. However, after having received Rs. 8,000 from the respondent and giving him the hope for installation of the water connection as the respondent intended to run the restaurant in the premises, it was guilty of deficiency in service.

HOWEVER, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the installation of water connection was possible if all the shop owners were interested and had paid the requisite amount as it involved expenses in lakhs. Be that as it may, we still feel that appellant should have immediately refunded the amount to the respondent by expressing its inability to provide water connection. In our view for such an act of negligence on deficiency in service the appellant was unjustly ordered to pay interest @ 15% and also damages and cost to the tune of Rs. 20,000. Once the offer of refund of Rs. 8,000 was made by the appellant the respondent should have accepted the amount and raised the grievance for seeking relief of compensation or the loss he suffered by approaching the District Forum and by refusing a cheque of Rs. 8,000 he wanted to claim unauthorised interest from the appellant.

TAKING overall view of the matter, we deem that compensation of Rs. 10,000 besides the amount of Rs. 8,000 the actual amount received by the appellant would meet the ends of justice. This amount shall be paid within 30 days of this order. Appeal is disposed of in above term. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal disposed of.