AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
The appellants / complainants hired the services of the respondents, who are Architects and Structural Engineers by profession, for supervising the construction of a house on their plot, which they had purchased for Rs.38,50,000/-. The respondents were paid Rs.30,000/- as advance for the services, which they had to render to the complainants/appellants as per the contract dated 14.1.2014, executed between the parties. The total payment to be made by the complainants / appellants to the respondents was agreed at Rs.70,000/-. Alleging deficiency in the services rendered to them by the respondents, the complainants / appellants approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint with the following prayers:
"It is therefore respectfully prayed that keeping in view of the above mentioned submission the present complaint be accepted in toto. And it is further prayed as under:
Under Consumer Protection Act consumers have right to information about the services so as to protect the consumers against unfair trade practices.Therefore, this Hon'ble State Commission may kindly direct OPs to provide details of their all associates including Chandigarh administered structural engineers and valuers particularly who have been assigned duty to provide services in respect to Plot No.337, Sector 40A, Chandigarh.Further OPs be ordered to provide their due reports along with due stagewise statutory as well as contractual certificates, documents etc. of the work supervised by them in respect to Plot No.337, Sector 40A, Chandigarh.
OPs including their Chandigarh Administration registered structure engineer, architects as well as valuers may be directed to fulfil their obligations as per terms of contract dt. 14.1.2014, for which they have already received payment to the tune of Rs. thirty thousand as per their demand in advance.Further they may kindly be directed to remove the defects or deficiencies in their services (including architectural, structural and valuer) in question and not to repeat them.
The OPs are showing wilful negligence, knowingly providing illegal, hazardous and deficient services, flouting all laws and harassing bonafide consumers using unfair trade practices, etc.Therefore, reasonable restrictions be put in the interest of bonafide consumers may kindly be imposed on OPs under Consumer Protection Act (e) to stop them from misleading bonafide consumers and punitive action may kindly be taken against OPs in interest of justice.
As per terms of contract dated 14.1.2014 the complainants are entitled for losses, damages, compensation etc.This Hon'ble Commission is also competent to award not only value losses of services but also to compensate complainants for consequential losses suffered by them.Therefore, it is humbly requested losses to the tune of Rs.35,73,612/- (Rs. Thirty five lacs ninety eight thousand six hundred and twelve only) with interest @ 12% per annum till its realization as the estimated losses till September, 2016 (probable date of decision of this Hon'ble State Commission) as per law and statute, to the complainants due to wilful negligence, deficiency in services and unfair trade practices on the part of OPs may kindly be awarded.
Further, complainants are entitled to all losses (including composition fee, penalty, fine etc. etc.) which they incur till the completion certificate is issued by Chandigarh Administration.The complainant reserves the right to claim the same along with any further consequential losses after their ascertainment including by the administration authorities.
Further kindly direct OPs to pay Rs. Three lacs for causing mental agony, harassment as well as inconvenience to the complainants.
The OPs may be directed to pay Rs. Fifty thousand as cost of litigation in favour of the complainants.
This Hon'ble State Commission in addition may give any other order or direction or relief for the redressal of grievance and protection of bonafide consumers, which it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Vide impugned order dated 09.8.2018, the State Commission held that the claims were inflated and exaggerated made only with a view to have the same within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. The complaint was therefore, dismissed with liberty to file the same before the appropriate Forum. Liberty was given to the complainant / appellant to invoke the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellants / complainants are before this Commission.
The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the State Commission had the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. In terms of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, the State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint where the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed and compensation claimed in the complaint, exceeds Rs.20.00 lacs, but does not exceed Rs.1.00 crore. Admittedly, the value of the services hired by the appellants / complainants was only Rs.70,000/-, the said amount being the fee, they were required to pay to the respondents. The value of the plot on which construction was to be raised would be irrelevant in such a case since admittedly, the construction was not to be raised by the respondents, their duty being only to supervise the construction and render architectural and structure related services.
A perusal of the consumer complaint would show that the complainants / appellants claimed a total sum of Rs.35,98,612/- as compensation from the respondents. The break-up of the damages / compensation claimed by the complainants / appellants as given in the consumer complaint, is as under:
Actual loss due to defective construction from the very start of foundation
Rs.3,50,000/- (paid due to deficiency in services and unfair trade practices of OPs)
@ 8% bank interest = Rs.76,276/-
Rs.4,26,276/-
Rs.4,26,276/-
Estimated loss for dismantling of wrong construction done form the foundation due to wilful negligence, deficiency in services and unfair trade practices, etc. on the part of the OPs
Rs.1,00,000/-
-----
Rs.1,00,000/-
Rs.1,00,000/-
Estimated loss for Malbas removing through trucks due to defective construction work at site due to wilful negligence, deficiency in services and unfair trade practices etc., on the part of the OPs
Rs.22,500/-
----
Rs.22,500/-
Rs.22,500/-
Estimated monetary loss of purchased
Loss = Rs.6,54,499/-
----
Rs.6,54,499/-
Rs.3,27,249/-
Construction period from 31.1.2014 to 7.12.2014, due to wilful negligence, deficiency in services and unfair trade practices etc. on the part of OPs
-
-
-
(@ 50%)
Estimated cost probably to be paid on 14 September 2016 as per provisions of Chandigarh Administration Byelaws for getting same amount of construction period of 10 months 06 days, which has been lost due to wilful negligence, deficiency in services and unfair trade practices, etc. on the part of OPs
Probable Cost = Rs.17,32,500
--
Probable cost = Rs.17,32,500/-
Rs.8,66,250/- (@ 50%)
Estimated loss from 18 March to 14 September 2016 due to increase in cost @ 7% per annum on structure work of Rs.16,92,400/- which is pending due to wilful negligence, deficiency in services and unfair trade practices etc. on the part of the OPs
Rs.3,11,537/-
---
Rs.3,11,537/-
Rs.1,55,768/- (@ 50%)
Estimated loss from 18 March to 14 September 2016 due to increase in cost @ 7% per annum on balance work (other than structure) for completion of building of Rs.1586625/- which is pending due to wilful negligence, deficiency ins ervices and unfair trade practices etc. on the part of the OPs
Estimated loss = Rs.2,92,067/-
---
Estimated loss = Rs.2,92,067/-
Rs.1,46,035/- (@ 50%)
Loss of road cut fee (Rs.2365/-), water charges (Rs.13790), electricity (Rs.5100), etc. as paid to Chandigarh Administration by the complainants which may be lost due to wilful negligence, deficiency in services and unfair trade practices etc., on the part of the OPs
Rs.21,255/-
@ 8% bank interest = Rs.4,632/-
Rs.25,887/-
Rs.12,943 (@ 50%)
Actual loss suffered of salary to complainant No.1 till 14 September 2016 as she has to run from pillar to post due to deficiency in services and to wilful negligence, deficiency in services and unfair trade practices, etc. on the part of the OPs
Rs.15,00,000/-
---
Rs.15,00,000/-
Rs.14,00,000/-
Estimated loss of interest on salary claim @ 8% bank interest
Rs.1,16,593/-
---
Rs.1,16,593/-
Rs.1,16,593/-
Estimated loss due to miscellaneous expenses due to deficiency in services and to wilful negligence, deficiency in services and unfair trade practices etc. on the part of the OPs
Rs.25,000/-
----
Rs.25,000/-
Rs.25,000/-
Estimated loss due to penalty / composition fee as per provisions of Chandigarh Administration byelaws for wrong construction
Yet to be ascertained by the Chandigarh Administration, Reserves the right to claim the same when cause of action arises on ascertainment when the same is ascertained by the Chandigarh Administration
Yet to be ascertained by the Chandigarh Administration. Reserves the right to claim the same when cause of action arises on ascertainment when the same is ascertained by the Chandigarh Administration
Yet to be ascertained by the Chandigarh Administration. Reserves the right to claim the same when cause of action arises on ascertainment when the same is ascertained by the Chandigarh Administration
Total estimated probable losses till date
Rs.51,25,951/-
Rs.80,908/-
Rs.52,06,859
Rs.35,98,612/- (claim against OPs)
In my view, most of the damages claimed by the complainants / appellants are remote and cannot be attributable to the alleged negligence on the part of the respondents in rendering services to the appellants / complainants. For instance, if there was defect in the construction, the compensation would be payable by the contractor and not by the architect. The same would apply to dismantling of the faulty construction, if any, as well as to the cost of the material purchased for the purpose of construction. The estimated cost of reconstruction also can be recovered from the contractor and not from the architect. Moreover, though the primary grievance appears to be in relation to the construction, the contractor was not impleaded as a party to the complaint. In his absence, no adjudication on the alleged defects in the construction was possible.
The claim made by the complainants / appellants includes Rs.14.00 lacs on account of salary of complainant No.1. The said claim has no direct nexus with the alleged deficiency in the services hired by the complainants / appellants. If the aforesaid remote and wholly untenable claims are ignored, the aggregate of the consideration payable by the appellants / complainants and the damages which can be said to be prima facie maintainable, would not exceed Rs.20.00 lacs.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am satisfied that the compensation claimed by the appellants / complainants was highly exaggerated, untenable and without any basis. Moreover, the claim for compensation included damages, which were remote and wholly unconnected with the services, which the respondents were to render to the complainants / appellants. One such clear instance is the claim of Rs.14.00 lacs for the salary of complainant No.1. Therefore, the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.