NATIONALCONSUMERDISPUTESREDRESSALCOMMISSION

NEWDELHI

CONSUMERCASENO.93OF2004

WITH
MA/43/2013,IA/5797/2013,IA/7507/2013
1.AMBIENCEISLANDAPARTMENTOWNERS
LagoonApartments
NH8,Gurgaon
Haryana
...........Complainant(s)
Versus

1.RAJSINGHGEHLOT&ANR.
L4,GreenParkExtension
NewDelhi110016.
2.M/s.HLFEnterprisesPvt.Ltd.
L4,GreenParkExtension
NewDelhi100016.
3.M/s.AmbienceInfrastructurePvt.Ltd.
L4,GreenParkExtension
NewDelhi110016.
4.M/s.ScanElevators
K127,KrishnaParkExtension
NewDelhi110018.
...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:

HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEJ.M.MALIK,PRESIDINGMEMBER

HON'BLEMR.DR.S.M.KANTIKAR,MEMBER
FortheComplainant: Dr.AmitabaSen,Advocate
WithMs.AditiPandey,
Ms.GeetanjaliSethi,
Mr.NihitNagpal,Mr.PuneetDhawan,
Ms.MalyashreeSridharan&
Ms.PragatiAneja,Advocates
FortheOpp.Party:
ForOPs1to3:Mr.SumitGehlawat,Advocate
WithMr.T.S.Thakraon,Advocate.
ForOPNo.4:Mr.AjaySharma,Advocate
WithMs.PoonamLau,Advocate
Dated:19Mar2014
ORDER
PERJUSTICEJ.M.MALIK1.Thegrievanceof66FlatOwnersofAmbienceIslandApartment,the
complainants,hastwoprongsagainstitsBuilder,Promoter,Mr.RajSinghGehlot,whorepresents
OppositePartyNos.1,2&3.Firstly,theOPs1,2&3didnotinstallthefullnumbersofElevators,
aspromisedandpiledontheagonyoftheFlatOwners,bynotmaintainingthealreadyinstalledlifts

throughouttheApartmentComplexandmoreparticularly,inBlockNos.C,E,FandH,byM/s.Scan
Elevators,OP4.2.TheOPs1,2&3advertisedthroughNewspapersregardingtheabovesaid
ApartmentComplex.Theadvertisementhadcaptivatingfeatures,oneofthembeing,ighspeed
ElevatorswithoneliftforeverytenApartments,therebyimplyingthatfourElevatorswouldbe
providedforeachofthefourBlocks,i.e.,C,E,F&H,housing40Apartmentseach,i.e.total16
ElevatorsforfourBlocks.FurthertheOPsdespitehavingchutesforfourLifts,providedtwo
ElevatorsineachoftheabovesaidfourBlocks.Copyoftheadvertisementandotherpromotional
mediaaffirmingthesamehavebeenplacedonrecordasAnnexure1,thru3.3.Thecruxofthewhole
problemisthat,fromdayone,theliftswereveryslowandpronetofrequentbreakdowns.Duetolack
ofanymaintenanceatall,mostofthefeaturesofthelifts,including,butnotlimitedtothealternate
powersourcehavebecometotallydysfunctional.Intheeventofpowerfailure,theliftsaretherefore
plungedintodarknesstillthebackupofpowersourcetakesover,thusmakingitaharrowing
experienceforthepeoplestuckintheliftsduringpowercuts.Thewholeproblemrelatingtothelifts
iscompoundedbecauseoftheintentionalneglectonthepartoftheOPstomaintainthesafetyand
operationofthelifts.4.TheliftsintheBlocksC,E,F&Hlacktheautomaticrescuedevice,the
mechanismwhichtakestheElevatorstothenearestfloorenablingtheoccupantsthereoftoalight
safelyintheeventofapowerfailure.TheabsenceofthisautomaticrescuedeviceintheElevatorsin
thesaidBlocksmeansthattheoccupantsofaliftarefrequentlystuckbetweenfloorsintheeventofa
powerfailure.OP4hasthroughoutfailedmiserablytoperformitsdutiesduringoneyearwarranty
periodorsubsequentmaintenanceofthelifts.Theliftswerenotmaintainedproperly.Inabsenceof
propermaintenancetherehavebeeninstanceswheretheElevatorshavecometostopafterfailing
freelyforseveralfloors.Therehavebeenoccasionswhentheliftshave,insteadofstoppingatthe
properlanding,cametoastop,coupleoffeetabovethelanding,therebyleavingtheoccupants
thereinwithnooptionbuttojumpoutofthelifttoalightandintheprocesshurtingthemselves.5.
Thecomplainantshavelodgedvariouscomplaintsandcorrespondenceandrepresentationswere
exchangedbetweentheparties,butthesedidnotringthebell.Thecorrespondencehasbeen
appendedonrecordasAnnexure5.M/s.ScanElevatorsLtd.,OP4wastoprovide16lifts,however,
Eightliftswerenotinstalled.TheOPs,bynotinstallingtheeightlifts,enrichedthemselvestothe
tuneofRs.1,28,00,000/,thesamebeingdeterminedfromtheQuotationreceivedfromOTIS,which
hasbeenplacedonrecordasAnnexureNo.6.TheOPsareliabletopayinterest@21%p.a.from
April,2001,tothedateoffilingofthecomplaint.Consequently,thiscomplaintwasfiledbeforethis
Commission,on08.11.2004,withthefollowingprayers:.DirecttheRespondentstoinstalltwo
additionalexpresselevatorswithrecognizedandreputablebrand,eachintheblocksofC,E,F&H.
b.DirecttheRespondentstoreplacetheexistingelevatorswithrecognizedandreputablebrandsin
theApartmentBlocks,C,E,F&Handensurethattheyworkefficiently.c.DirecttheRespondents
topayinterest@12%onRs.88,00,000/fromApril,2001tothedateoffilingofthiscomplaint.d.
DirecttheRespondentstopaycostofthepresentcomplaint.e.DirecttheRespondentstopay
appropriatecompensationtoeachComplainanttowardsthementalagony,suffering,tortureand
damagesthateachofthecomplainantshavehadtoundergobecauseofthedeficientliftsprovidedby
theRespondents.f.Anyotherand/orfurtherreliefwhichthisHonleCommissionmaybepleasedto
grantinthelightofthefactsofthepresentcomplaint6.OPs1to3haveenumeratedthefollowing
defencesintheirsupport.ThereisnodeficiencyonthepartoftheOPs.Alltheliftsinstalledtherein
areofgoodquality.Theliftswereinstalledbeforethepossessionandtheoccupationcertificate
whichwasreceivedon31.12.2001fromTown&CountryPlanning,Haryana,Chandigarh.The
Complainantswerefullyawareonandbeforethebookingoftheflatsregardingthequalityofthelifts
inquestionandthesamewereinstalledandmaintainedbyOP4.Nocomplaintorrepresentation
regardingtheabovesaiddefectsweremadetotheOPs.Thecounselforthecomplainant,Dr.
AmitabhaSen,isoneoftheresidentsofthesaidApartmentsComplexresidingatNo.E303.Hehas
filedseveralfalseandfrivolouscasesagainsttheOPs.Again,ComplainantNos.3,12,13,14,21,22,
23,29,30,34,38,41,42and54havegivenstatementsandaffidavitsthattheyhavecarriedout
unauthorizedconstructionintheirApartments.Theyhaveviolatedbuildingbyelawsandother
normsofparkingandrepresentativeblocksoftheresidents.TheOP2receivedanoticefromthe
Director,Town&CountryPlanning,Haryana,Chandigarhagainstthecomplainantswhohave
violatedthebuildingbyelaws.ThosedocumentshavebeenannexedasAnnexure.ComplainantNos.

9,12,22,23,24&52didnotpurchasetheflatfromOPs.Likewise,complainantNos.2&6,didnot
haveanyright,titleorinterestinthesubjectmatterofthecomplaint.Again,thiscaseisbarredby
limitation.Mostofthecomplainantsappliedandwereallottedtheapartmentsinquestionpriorto
November,2002.ThepresentcomplaintwasfiledinthisCommission,on08.11.2004.7.Theallottees
wereinformedatthetimeofbookingthattherewasprovisionforfourlifts,ineachBlock,i.e.C,E,F
&HandtwoliftshavebeenprovidedineachBlockanditwasagreedthatAllotteescangetthe
additionallift(s)installedattheirowncost.Theagreementofsaleisclearinthisrespect.8.OP4
listedthefollowingdefences.Ithasgotnoprivityofcontractwiththecomplainants.Itisneitheran
agentnorinanywayconnectedwiththemanagementofOPs1to3.Dealings,transactionsbetween
OP4andOPs1to3ontheotherhand,wereonrincipaltoprincipalbasis,wherein,theformerhad
compliedwith/honouredthecontractgivenbyOPs1to3,strictlyinaccordancewiththe
requirementsandspecificationstipulatedintheletterdated18.12.2000andtheofferletterdated
21.11.2000,duringthewarrantyperiodonly.Itisexplainedthattherewasnoconditionforinstalling
theliftswiththepromiseoranyconditionstipulatedintheAgreementforighspeedElevators.The
OP4hasevenstationeditsEngineersandteamofTechnicianspermanentlyinthebuildingandwere
providing24hoursallbackservice,though,thesamewasneverstipulatedinthetermsand
conditionsofthecontract.9.Afterhavingsubjectedtheevidenceandwrittensynopsestoacloset
scrutinyandhavingheardthecounselatlength,wehavecometothefollowingconclusions.A.
NumberofLifts:Themainquestionrevolvesroundthetotalnumberoflifts.Accordingtothe
counselforthecomplainants,theyweretakenforaride.TheattentionofthisCommissionwas
invitedtowardstheAdvertisement,atC1,C2&C3,markedasAnnexure2,reads:.Amenities&
Facilities:i)Ratioofonelifttono.of]apartmentsintheblock]1:101:24to57[Emphasis
supplied].10.ThebrochureatEx.C4,showsthattherewouldbefourlifts,oneeach,fortenFlats.
11.Weclapnovaluetothesenambypambypleas.Theevidencehastobeviewedholistically.Ithas
nottobereadinvacuatothedetrimentofoneandtothebenefitofother.Thishastobereadasa
wholeascompositedocument.Ontheotherhand,thereisfinalagreemententeredintobetweenthe
parties.Theotherpromises,advertisements,assurancesgiventotheBuyers,paleintoinsignificance,
whenthematterissettledbetweentheparties,throughtheAgreement.ParaHoftheAgreement,
dated01.11.2001,clearly,specificallyandunequivocallymentions:.ANDWHEREAS,the
ApartmentAllotteeacknowledgesthattheCompanyhasreadilyprovidedallinformation,
clarificationsasrequiredbyhim/herbutthathe/shehasnotrelieduponandisnotinfluencedbyany
architectplans,salesplans,salebrochures,advertisements,representations,warranties,statementsor
estimatesofanynature,whatsoever,whether,writtenororal,madebythecompany,itsselling
agents/brokersorotherwise,including,butnotlimitedtoanyrepresentationsrelatingtodescription
orphysicalconditionoftheproperty,theBuildingortheApartmentorthesizeordimensionsofthe
Apartmentortheroomsthereinoranyotherphysicalcharacteristicsthereof,theservicestobe
providedtotheApartmentAllottees,theestimatedfacilitiesavailabletotheApartmentAlolotteesor
anyotherdataexceptasspecificallyrepresentedinthisAgreementandthattheApartmentAllottees
hasreliedsolelyonhis/herownjudgmentandinvestigationindecidingtoenterintothisAgreement
andtopurchasethesaidApartment.Nooralorwrittenrepresentationsorstatementsshallbe
consideredtobepartofthisAgreementandthatthisAgreementisselfcontainedandcompletein
itselfinallrespects12.ThisclearlygoestoshowthatthegreementsupercedestheBrochures,
Advertisements,Representations,SalePlans,etc.Itwasthedutyofthecomplainantstogothrough
theAgreement,thoroughly,inebylineandordbywordTheysignedthepaperswithpeneyes.They
areeducatedpeople.TheyarerepresentedbyanAdvocate,who,alsoresidesthere.Consequently,the
BrochureandSalePlanspaleintoinsignificance.Nocompensationinrespectoftwoliftsinthe
premisescanbegranted.13.Moreover,thecaseofOPs1to3isthattheyhavestartedselling
ApartmentsinMarch,2001.AtthetimeofbookingtheApartments,theywererequiredtomoveinto
theflatsandtheliftswereinstalledandoperational.Theflatswereinspectedbytheallottees.They
wereinformedaboutthedetailsofthelifts.Theywereinformedofthenumberandqualityofthelifts
inquestionandthesamewereinstalledandmaintainedbyScanElevatorsLtd.,OP4.Itisalso
pointedoutthatthecomplainantshavefailedtoprovideanycorrespondencesexchangedbetweenthe
complainantsandtheOPsregardinginstallationofadditionalliftsmadebeforefilingthepresent
complaint.TheOPshavereferredtothelettersdated19.04.2001,26.01.2004and01.11.2006.Thus,

thecomplainantswereawareregardingthetwoliftsandnotfourlifts.Onthecontrary,ifthe
complainantsboughtapiginapoke,whocancometotheirrescue?.Theirsilence,foralongtime,is
pernicious.14.Last,butnottheleast,thecaseofthecomplainantsisbarredbytime,onthis
particularcount.Nodateofcauseofactionwasspecified,whentheliftswerenotinstalled,atthe
veryinception,intheyear2001,thecomplaintshouldhavebeenfiledsomewhere,intheyear2003,
itself.B.Theentirecaseisnotbarredbytime:15.ThenextsubmissionmadebythecounselforOPs
1to3wasthatthecaseisbarredbytime.Nodateofcauseofactionwasspecified.Theoccupation
certificateofthecomplainantwasreceivedon21.12.2001andthepossessionwashandedovertothe
ownersoftheapartments.Mostofthecomplainantsappliedandwereallottedapartments,priorto
November,2002,i.e.,twoyearspriortothefilingofthecomplaint.Thepresentcomplaintwasfiled
on08.11.2004anditisbarredbytime.Theallegedfiguredisclosedbythecomplainantsinthesum
ofRs.3,20,68,000/isfalseandhighlyinflated.16.Hisargumenthasforceinameasure.Byno
stretchofimagination,itcanbeheldthatthecaseisentirelybarredbytime.Theyearof
maintenance,changeswitheveryyear.Freshcauseofactionariseswitheveryyear.Thecasemaybe
barredforclaimingtheamountofliftsbecauseitwasfiledtwoyearsafterthelifts,wereinstalled,
but,restofthecaseis,withintheperiodoflimitation.C.Whether,allthecomplainantsareinterested
inpursuingthiscase:17.ThecaseofOPs1,2and3isthatthecomplainantNos.12,13,14,21,22,
23,30,34,38,41,42&54havegivenstatementsthattheyhavegotnoconcernwiththepresent
complaintandtheirsignatureshavebeenobtainedbyfraudandmisrepresentation.Itisprayedthat
thisCommissionshouldfilecontemptpoceedingsforfilingthepresentcomplaint.Moreover,
complainantNos.9,24&52haveneitherbookedanyflatnorpurchasedtheflats.Thecomplainant
Nos.2&6havealreadysoldtheirflats.ThereisnoprivityofcontractbetweencomplainantNos.8,
28,46,47&59.18.Alltheseargumentsarebereftofmerit.Thecomplainantshavefiledapaper,
signedbytheabovesaidflatowners,viz,12,13,14,etc.Iftheyarenotinterestedinfilingthe
complaint,theyshouldcometotheCommissionortheyshouldcomethroughtheAdvocate.On
07.03.2014,wepassedthefollowingorders:ounselforthepartiesarepresent.Argumentsheard.It
ismadeclearthatthosewhodonotwanttocontinuewiththecase,mayfileaseparateapplication,
eitherinpersonorthroughtheirAdvocate,withVakalatnama.Affidavitmaybefiledwithin3days,
i.e.,till4.00PM,onMonday,10.03.2014.Argumentsareclosed,Advocatesneednotcomeforthe
Arguments.Reservedfororders19.Noneofthelitigantshavefiledapplicationforwithdrawalofthe
case.However,thecomplainantshavefiledaJointStatement,onbehalfof,asmanyas193residents.
TheargumentsadvancedonbehalfofOPsisthatthereisnoprivityofcontractbetweenthosewho
havesoldthepremisesorwherethetenantsareresiding.Thisargumentisnotacoherentargument.
Aretheynotgettingthemaintenanceallowancefromthem.Consequently,privityofcontractstands
established.Theywanttohavethebenefitofboththeworlds.Ontheonehand,theyarecharging
maintenanceallowanceandontheotherhand,theycontendthattheyhavegotnoconnectionwith
them.D.ViolationofByelaws:20.ThenextsubmissionmadebythecounselfortheOPs1to3was
thatthecomplainantshaveviolatedthebyelawsbywayofcarryingoutillegalconstructionintheir
respectiveApartmentsandeventhedefacementoftheexteriorofthebuildingblocksinthecomplex.
OP2receivedanoticefromtheDirector,Town&CountryPlanning,Haryana,Chandigarh,as
detailedabove.ItisalsosubmittedthatthemaintenancedueuptoNovember,2012,towards
complainant,Dr.AmitabhaSen,ComplainantNo.48,inthesumofRs.55,598/,towardscomplainant
No.62,Mr.SubhashChandraTalwar,inthesumofRs.1,12,580/,towardscomplainantNo.44,
Mr.IshanMohanSandhu,inthesumofRs.32,894/andtowardscomplainantNo.65,Mr.VipenVig,
inthesumofRs.4,355/.21.Doallthesequestionsgermanetothepresentcontroversy?Incasethe
complainantshaveviolatedthelawandrules,thelawwilltakeitsowncourse.TheDirector,Town&
CountryPlanning,Haryana,Chandigarh,isalreadyseizedofthematter.E.MaintenanceofLifts:22.
Nowweturntothequestionofmaintenanceofthelifts/Elevators.Thecounselforthecomplainants
hasplacedrelianceonthefollowingauthorities.(1)ColgatePalmolive(India)Ltd.Vs.Hindustan
LeverLtd.,AIR1999SC3105(2)ManrolandDruckimachinenVs.MulticolourOffsetLtd.&Anr.,
(2004)7SCC447,(3)OptonicaKalyaniSharpIndiaLtd.Vs.GopalLakhotia,II(2003)CPJ435,(4)
Mrs.MeenaBalan&Anr.Vs.MaxworthHomesLtd.&Anr.,II(2002)CPJ52(MRTP),(5)
Dr.MohanaraoMaruthiraoChargeVs.M/s.SipaniAutomobilesLtd.,II(1992)CPJ613and(6)
OriginalPetitionNo.25OF2005,titledMrs.RashmiHanda&Ors.Vs.M/s.OTISElevator

Company(India)Ltd.,decidedbythisBench,on21.01.2014.23.Onthecontrary,thecounselforthe
OppositeParties1,2and3,hascitedthefollowingauthorities,insupportofhiscase.(1)Ravneet
SinghbaggaVs.M/s.KLMRoyalDutchAirlines&Anr.,(2000)1SCC66(2)SatishGarg&Anr.
Vs.NetafimIrrigationIndiaPvt.Ltd.&Anr.(RPNo.2086of2012)decidedbythisCommissionon
03.10.2012(3)Usha(India)Ltd.,Vs.StateEstateManagementPvt.Ltd.,I(2005)CPJ43(NC),(4)
ShriMaqboolAlamAnsariVs.Mr.M.S.K.Mapara(RPNo.2179of2009)decidedbythis
Commissionon09.02.2012(5)SahilGardenCoop.HousingSocietyLtd.,Vs.ParanjpeEstates&
DevelopmentCo.(P)Ltd.,(FANo.346of2010)decidedbythisCommissionon04.07.2012,(6)
KishoriLalBablaniVs.AdityaEnterprises&ORs.,II(2012)CPJ682(NC),(7)SujataNathVs.
PopularNursingHome&Ors.,III(2011)CPJ239(NC),(8)RameshKumarSihanHansVS.Goyal
EyeInstitute,2(2012)CPJ676(NC),(9)RatnaGhosh&Ors.,Vs.Dr.P.K.Agarwal&Ors.,
(ComplaintNo.90f2010)decidedbythisCommissionon29.03.2010,(10)IndianOilCorporation
Vs.ConsumerProtectionCouncil&Anr.,SLP(C)No.9440of1993,decidedon07.12.1993and
(11)ToplineShoesLtd.,Vs.CorporationBank,AIR2002SC2427.24.Itisanadmittedfactthatthe
OPchargesmaintenancesoftheliftatRs.1.50persq.ft.andnowithasbeenraisedtoRs.2.26/per
sq.ft.LetustakeupthecaseofShriPramodKishan,whohasgot2656sq.ft.Hewaspresentinthe
Commissionduringthefinalarguments.HehastopayasumofRs.6,975/approx.,asmaintenance
charges.Themaintenancecharges,alsoincludethemaintenanceofthelifts,security,etc.25.Itis
noteworthythattheOPs1to3andeven4,didnotutteraword/syllableorwhisper,aboutthe
maintenanceofthelifts.NorecordwasproducedbeforethisCommission.Noevidenceoftheir
regularvisitsawthelightoftheday.Noattendanceregisterwasmaintainednoritwasexplainedas
towhyitwasnotmaintained.NoEngineerevervisitedormaintainedthelifts.Itissurprisingtonote
thatnorecordisbeingmaintainedforthelastaboutmorethanadecade.Themaintenanceallowance
ischargedregularlyexceptfewexceptions.26.Theadmissionofthisfactcomesoutfromthehorse
mouthitself.Mr.RajSinghGehlot,OppositepartyNo.1,inthecapacityofDirector,Ambience
Developers&InfrastructurePvt.Ltd.,issuedletterdated17.09.2007toLt.Gen.VinayShankar,
President,AmbienceLagoonApartmentsResidentsWelfareAssociation,therelevantparaofwhich,
runsasfollows:nthisrespect,Iwouldliketodrawyourattentiontothediscussionsandconsensus
arrivedwithyouinthematterwherebyitwasagreedthatafterobtainingtherequisiteapprovalof
yourassociation,youwillsendusaformalrequisitionforobtainingofquotationforreplacementof
theabovesaidliftatthecostsandexpensesoftheresidents.Pleasenotethatwewereinagreement
thatkeepinginviewalltheaspectsandbettermentoftheservicesatLagoonComplex,theliftsneed
tobereplacedandtheexteriorpaintneedtobecarriedoutforwhichyouweresupposedtosendme
theauthorizationletter.Similarly,firefightingequipmentsandservicesneedmajorrepairandover
haulingforwhichyourformalapprovalisnecessary27.TheMinutesofMeetingheldwiththe
representativesofResidentWelfareAssociationon31.08.2003,mentionsunderthecaption,IFTSas
under:WAisnotatallhappywithliftsprovidedbyScanElevators,particularlywithreferenceto
QualityofMtc.Theyallegedthatsameproblemskeeponappearingagainandagainandthemtc.,
worksneedtobetoneduptoimproveperformanceandreliability.Besidesabove,following
observationsweremadebythemtoimprovequalityofservice:A.Someoftheemergency]Action
tobetakenlightsinLiftcabinsarenot]byScanElevatorsfunctional.]28.Theliftsprovidedbythe
OPsarenotinconsonancewiththerecentlyenactedHaryanaLawsinvolvingmaintenanceand
operationofalllifts,operatingintheStateofHaryana.Thelifts,suppliedbytheOPs,aresobadthat
theOPshavefailedtorenewthelicenceforthelifts,whichisanothermandatoryrequirementfor
operatingliftsintheStateofHaryana.Thecomplainantshaveprayedthatallthe22liftsshouldbe
replaced,whichwillincuracostofRs.4,47,70,044/.Thecomplainantsarealsoentitledtointerest
@12%p.a.for10yearstothetuneofRs.13,92,34,837/.29.Letusnow,turntotheExpertReports,
filedbyboththeparties,whichfavoursthecaseofeachparty.Sh.A.K.Verma,ElectricalEngineer,
appointedasExpertonbehalfofthecomplainants,submittedhisaffidavit,therelevantportionof
which,isasunder:havevisitedoneormoreoftheliftsinstalled.Theydonotqualifyashighspeed
elevatorsastheirspeedislessthan1.5mtrs.persecond.Theyareinaverysorrystateofaffairsas
theyseemtohaveremainedunservicedforalongtimeandarethusinanurgentneedofan
exhaustivemaintenance.Allelevators,therefore,shouldbeessentiallyservicedbytrainedand
experiencedTechniciansatanintervalnotexceeding30daysandpreventivemaintenance/

repairs/replacementbecarriedoutunderexpertsupervisionandguidance30.Ontheotherhand,the
CertificateofInspectionsubmittedbytheExpert,Sh.S.S.Malani,onbehalfofOPs,isasunder:he
inspectionoftheliftsinstalledinthepremisesofLagoonresidentialcomplex,Gurgaon,iscarriedout
andisfoundsafeforoperation31.Dr.AmitabhaSenlodgedacomplaintwiththeDistrictTown
Planner,Enforcement,HUDA,on13.01.2005.ItsrelevantparaNo.10,runsasfollows:hesub
standardElevatorsprovidedintheApartmentsComplexareafarcryfromthepromisedhispeed
elevatorsandhaveresultedinseveralinjuriesalready32.Theoppositepartieswanttomakebricks,
withoutstraw.Itiswellsettledthatthedocumentaryevidencewillalwaysgetpreponderanceover
theoralsubmissions,because,itiswellknownaxiomoflawthat,enmaytelllies,butthedocuments,
cannotThereisnotevenaniotaofdocumentaryevidence,whichmaygotorevealthatanyaction,
anywork,anypayment,etc.,wasmadetothemaintaineroflifts,eitherbyOP4oranyother
maintenancecompany,forthelast,morethanadecade.Whyaretheycharging,suchahugeamount,
towardsaintenance.Isthere,anypurposetofeathertheirwnnest?TheOPs1,2and3areliableto
pay70%ofthemaintenancechargesfromNovember,2002,tilldate.Thesaidamountbereturned,
within90days,withinterestattherateof9%p.a.,fromthedateofreceiptofthisorder,else,itwill
carryinterestattherateof12%p.a.,tillitsrealization.F.LiabilityofOP4.33.Thelearnedcounsel
forOP4vehementlyarguedthatthecontractformaintenanceofliftsinquestion,wasgivenforone
yearonlyandthattoo,itwasareemaintenance.Theliftswereinstalledon21.11.2000.Itwas
specificallymentionedintheQuotationcanElevatorLimitedasunder:urQuotationincludesforone
year(12months)freemaintenance.Theperiodofthismaintenancewillbedeemedtocommenceon
thedatetheinstallationiscompletedandofferedforinspection.Thedateofcommencementofthis
servicewillremainunchangedirrespectiveofanydelayinbuildingcompletion,availabilityof
permanentpowersupply,inspection,takingoverorcommencinguseofthelift.Maintenancewill
consistofregularexaminationandanynecessaryadjustmentandlubricationofequipmentby
competentemployeesunderourdirectionandsupervision.Therequiredsupplieswillbefurnished
exceptsuchpartsasmaybeneededbecauseofnegligence,misuseoraccidentnotcausedbyus.
Uponyourrequest,specialexaminationwillbemade,shouldtroubledevelopbetweenregular
examinationsandyouagreetonotifyuspromptlyofanysuchtrouble.Allworkwillbeperformed
duringourregularworkinghoursofourregularworkingdays,exceptforemergency,minor
adjustment,callbackservicewhichwillbeprovidedduringregularworkinghoursandalsoduring
anyovertimehours.Noworkorserviceotherthanthespecificallymentionedisincludedorintended.
Itisagreedthatwedonotassumepossessionorcontrolofanypartoftheequipmentbutsuch
remainsyourexclusivelyastheowner(orlessee)thereof.Weshallnotbeliableforanyloss,damage
ordelayduetocausebeyondourreasonablecontrolincludingbutnotlimitedtoactsofgovernment,
strikes,fireexplosion,theft,floods,riot,civilcommotion,ormalicious,mischieforactofGod.
Undernocircumstances,shallwebeliableforconsequentialdamages34.OP4hasproducedthe
agreementforoneyearonly.Itisanindisputablefactthattheiragreement,forfuture,wasnot
renewed.ThedeficiencyonpartofOPs1,2and3isdiscernibleas,inthefuture,suchlike
agreementsdidnotseethelightoftheday.ThisisunfairtradepracticeonpartofOPs1,2and3.The
OP4shouldhaveproducedthemaintenancerecord,recordshowingthedetailsaboutappointmentof
Guards,Engineers,Experts,etc.However,OP4isconspicuouslysilentaboutit.Asitsrolewas
limited,therefore,weimposecostsonOP4,inthesumofRs.1,32,000/,tobedividedbythe
complainants,inthesumofRs.2,000/each.Samebepaid,within90daysofthereceiptofthis
order,otherwise,itwouldcarryinterestattherateof9%p.a.35.TheOPs1,2and3aredirectedto
maintaintheliftseveryday,monthandyear,withinaperiodof90days,fromthedateofreceiptof
thisorder,otherwise,theyareliabletopaypenaltyofRs.15,000/each,forBlocksC,E,FandH,per
month.Theyaredirectedtomaintaintherecord,inthiscontext.Liability,ifany,shallbesaddled
uponthemifthereisanyaccidentormishap.WealsoimposecostsofRs.5,000/each,tobepaidto
eachofthe66complainants,whichbepaid,within90days,else,itwillcarryinterestattherateof
9%p.a.,tillrealization.

......................J
J.M.MALIK
PRESIDINGMEMBER

......................
DR.S.M.KANTIKAR
MEMBER