Richa Jindal Vs Goel Builder Evidence

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ITO, VIKAS
BHAWAN, NEW DELHI
COMPLAINT No. of 2014
IN THE MATTER OF :-
RICHA JINDAL COMPLAINANT
Versus
Mrs. PUNAM GOYAL & ors. Respondent
EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
I, Ms. Richa Jindal, Advocate D/o Late Shri K.C. Jindal, aged about 40 years,
residing at B-7/86/1, D.D.A. Flats, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029, do hereby
solemnly declare and state as under :
1. That I am an Advocate of more than 13 years standing and is practicing in various

courts of India.
2. That I have been working for a number of clients, including various Insurance
Companies, DDA, DSIIDC, Govt of NCT of DELHI and other reputed Clients.
3. That I state that in order to smoothly perform my professional duties and to update my
knowledge, I needed some space for my personal use and in search thereof, I
approached the opposite party No. 1 and accordingly after a lot of discussions and
deliberations, both parties agreed to enter into an agreement whereby I agreed to
purchase and the Opposite Party No. 1 agreed to Sell her 50 % right in the Basement
Floor admeasuring about 900 sq. ft. alongwith Car Parking Space in the stilt Area in the
Property No. D-258, erected on a plot of land measuring 220 sq. yds situated at
Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi vide Sale Deed dated 16th May, 2013 duly registered as
Document No. 2566 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 307 on pages 24 to 35 on 22-5-2013 in
the office of the Sub Registrar – V-A, New Delhi and since then has been in possession
thereof. A True Copy of the Sale Deed is filed and may be permitted to be tendered in
evidence as Ex CW1/A.
4. That I say that the claim of compensation and/or redressal of her grievances of does not
exceed Rs. 20 lakhs and is well within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.
5. That I state that the present complaint relates to the cheating as well as unfair trade
practice with regard to the said property purchased by her from the Respondent/
Opposite Party No.1.
6. That I state the various facts giving rise to my grievance are shortly described below:
a) That on 2nd June 2013 as stated above, I visited the said property of the Respondent
No.1 and believing the representations made by the Respondent No. 1, was lured to
purchase the said property for her personal use. Since I needed the said space for
safe keeping of my Office Files, Records of Clients and my precious law Books
Library, I found that space suitable. On my specific query, I was assured that there
was no question of any seapage of water from any source and that the said place
was termite free.
B) That it was represented by the Opposite Party No. 1 to me at the time of the said
deal as follows:
A Residential Plot of Land bearing No. D-258, measuring 220 sq. yds.
Situated at Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi was allotted by the DDA / President of
India vide Perpetual Lease Deed dated 29-8-1968 to one, Shri Om Prakash Sood.
Shri Om Prakash Sood entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 25-6-2003 with
one, Shri Ashwani Wadhera and executed a GPA in his favour.
Mr. Om Prakash Sood also got the said Property converted freehold from
Leasehold vide Conveyance deed dated 15-7-2003 registered as Document No.
2516 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 951 on pages 98 to 99 in the office of the Sub
Registrar, New Delhi.
Mr. Om Prakash Sood gifted the Ground Floor thereof to his son, Mr. Vinod
Kumar Sood, who in turn sold the same to Mr. P. P. Sharma, the Opposite Party No.
3 vide Sale deed dated 26-11-2009 registered as Document No. 15659 in Book No.
1, Volume No. 9674 on pages 130 to 137 on 27-11-2009 in the office of the Sub
Registrar, New Delhi.
Mr. Om Prakash Sood sold the entire Terrace of First Floor to Mrs. Aparna
Wadhera, who constructed the Second Floor thereon, who in turn sold the same to
Mr. P. P. Sharma the Opposite Party No. 3 vide Sale deed dated
4-3-2010 registered as Document No. 3502 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 9930 on
pages 75 to 85 on 9-3-2010 in the office of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi.
Mr. Om Prakash Sood sold the entire First Floor to one, Mrs. Bimla Gautam on
22-8-2003, who in turn sold the same to Mr. P. P. Sharma the Opposite Party No. 3
vide Sale deed dated 4-3-2010 registered as Document No. 3501 in Book No. 1,
Volume No. 9930 on pages 67 to 74 on 9-3-2010 in the office of the Sub Registrar,
New Delhi.
Mr. P. P. Sharma got the Plans sanctioned and constructed a building thereon
consisting of the Basement, Stilt, Ground, First, Second and the Third Floors as per
Building Plan sanctioned vide File No. 82/b/SZ/I/SP/10/R-27 dated 26-3-2010
through M/s. J. K. Goyal Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., the Opposite Party No. 2.
Mr. P. P. Sharma further appointed the said Opposite Party No. 2 as the General
Attorney vide GPA dated 15/3/2010 duly registered as Document No. 1519 in Addl.
Book No. IV, Volume No. 3522 on pages 176 to 184 on 15-3-2010 , who under the
said authority sold the property in question, being 50 % right in the Basement Floor
admeasuring about 900 sq. ft. alongwith Car Parking Space in the stilt Area in the
Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi vide Sale Deed dated 20 th May, 2011 duly
registered as Document No. 7832 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 11172 on pages 01 to
09 on 28-5-2011 in the office of the Sub Registrar – V, New Delhi to the Opposite
Party No.1.
C) The opposite Party No. 1 sold the said property in question, being 50 % right in the
Basement Floor admeasuring about 900 sq. ft. alongwith Car Parking Space in the
stilt Area in the Property No. D-258, erected on a plot of land measuring 220 sq. yds
situated at Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi vide Sale Deed dated 16 th May, 2013
duly registered as Document No. 2566 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 307 on pages 24
to 35 on 22-5-2013 in the office of the Sub Registrar – V, New Delhi to me. A True
Copy of the Sale Deed is filed and may be permitted to be tendered in evidence as
Ex CW1/A.
D) That one, Shri Rajendra Gupta is stated to have purchased the Upper Ground Floor
of the said Property from the Opposite Party No. 1.
E) That one, Shri C. M. Kapur is stated to have purchased the First Floor of the said
Property from the Opposite Party No. 1.
F) That one, Mrs. Kalpana Chandra is stated to have purchased the Second Floor of
the said Property from the Opposite Party No. 1.
G) That one, Shri Praveen Gulati is stated to have purchased the Third Floor of the said
Property from the Opposite Party No. 1.
H) That as per the Sale transaction, I have become the Owner of the aforesaid portion
of the said Property.
I) Mr. Rajendra Gupta is now maintaining the said property for and on behalf of all the
Owners of the various portions with the help of funds contributed by all the
occupiers.
J) Mr. Anil Kumar is occupying the First floor, Mr. Anil Khattar is occupying the Second
Floor, Mrs. Reena Gupta is occupying the Third Floor.
K) In order to provide water to the upper floors, the opposite Party No. 2 has kept and /
or installed the underground Water Tanks in the Basement / Ground Floor in the
other half basement of the said property, underground water tanks of other floors.
The said Tanks are built adjacent to the basement wall of the portion owned and
occupied by me.
7. That at the time of purchase of the said property by me, the Respondent no.1 assured
and represented to me that the property was in good condition and that as such there
has never been any seepage problem.
8. That after purchasing the said Property, I, who am an Advocate by profession, spent
huge amount of her hard earned money on wood work in the basement for storing and
housing my library, books and files and other records of my clients and also my
personal records.
9. That on ___________, when I opened my office, to my utter shock, I found that huge
amount of water flooded into the basement through walls, even though there was no
rain or other overflow of Water outside.
10. Due to said seepage of Water the records and books and furniture belonging to me
were spoiled and I had to engage the services of some Civil Engineers, who opined that
the Opposite Party No. 2 failed to take necessary precaution while constructing the
underground water tanks and basement at the time of construction and has failed to
further ensure that no water or seepage came into the basement thereby. The said
defect is a latent defect, which cannot be detected by a man of ordinary prudence
without the services of some expert. I had to depend upon the representation made by
the Respondent/ Opposite Party No. 1 and 2.
11. That the seepage from the said Underground Water Tanks has made the entire
basement utterly damp. The said seepage is also emitting bad and obnoxious smell,
which offends me, my employees and my clients and visitors. This has also affected my
health and that of my visitors and employees. I seem to have developed a number of
allergies thereby.
12. That my practice has been affected adversely, since my clients do not want to come
there and the said place has become useless for me.
13. There is a crust of fungal growth on the affected portion of the walls, wooden Almirahs,
book shelf as well as on the law books lying, which after drying and mixing with the
surrounding atmosphere affect me and my employees. The doctors have suggested
that it we all continue to inhale fungus, it would aggravate our lungs and may aggravate
already developed asthmatic conditions. Photographs showing damage as well as
fungal growth on the walls of basement, books, court case files, book shelf, furniture are
filed and may be permitted to be exhibited as Exhibit CW1/2 (Colly.).
14. That I state the damage to my property has been caused on account of carelessness
and negligence on the part of the opposite Parties Nos. 1,2, and 3, since the said
persons are responsible for the bad workmanship and / or for non maintenance of their
respective Underground Water Tanks and the Pipelines leading to and from the same.
15. That I state that their persistent refusal to carry out the requisite repair work in and
around the underground water tanks and for maintaining the same is causing undue
hardship and damage to me and my property.
16. That I state that the Opposite Parties have not taken adequate and requisite care while
constructing and maintaining the underground water tanks as a result of which there is
extensive seepage to my portion of the Property. Further, despite being made aware of
the damage and hardships suffered by me and my employees on account of the above
said seepage, but the Opposite Parties have not bothered to take any remedial
measures.
17. That I state that inspite of my busy schedule, I made various calls and personal visits,
but the Opposite Parties did not took any step to rectify said problem and have failed to
repair the aforesaid Underground Water Tanks and the Pipelines leading thereto,
whereby a lot of water floods into the said basement portion belonging to me.
18. That I state that thereafter, after giving the Opposite Parties prior information, I engaged
the services of one, M/s. P. Garg & Associates, Engineer, Interior Decorator and one,
Mr. Rajender Gupta, Civil Engineer to have the damage through seepage investigated
and assessed. The said engineers started their work of investigation and assessment
even in this process of investigation and assessment, the Opposite Parties did not co-
operate, and did everything possible within their means to delay and stop the said
investigative work, and the investigation into the cause of the seepage. Copy of
estimate for repairs to stop Leakage in the said property given by M/S P. Garg &
Associates, Engineer, Interior Decorator and one, Mr. Rajender Gupta, Civil Engineer
are being filed and may be permitted to be marked and exhibited as EXCW1/3 &
EXCW 1/4.
19. That I state that according to the opinion of the said engineers, the damage is being
caused by the faulty construction and, inadequate water-proofing and accumulation of
water in the adjacent wall of basement. Mr Gupta also opined that in case, immediate
remedial measures are not taken by the opposite Parties, then the seepage is likely to
spread to other portion of my property and to the very foundation of the Building and
shall also affect the cantilevers in walls and pillars of the building, thereby endangering
the entire structure of the building itself. According to the aforesaid engineers, the total
estimated cost of the work for remedying the seepage and damage caused by it to be
done in the affected portion of the Underground Water Tank belonging to the Opposite
Parties is estimated at approximately Rs. 3,60,000/- .
20. That I further state that despite the advice of the above named Mr. Gupta, and passage
of now about more than six months, the Opposite Parties have not taken any action as
suggested to them. In the meanwhile, the damage to my property is worsening. The
seepage of said water has made the entire basement adjoining the under water tanks
utterly damp. The seepage is also emitting bad and obnoxious smell, which offends me,
my family members, my employees and my client visiting to the said property.
21. That I state the damage to my property has been caused on account of carelessness
and negligence on the part of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 , and the persistent refusal
of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 to carry out and / or persistent neglect to effect the
repair work. I further state that Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 had not taken adequate and
requisite care while constructing the said Underground water tanks. Further, despite
being made aware of the damage and hardships suffered by me and my family on
account of the above said seepage to my property the Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 have
not bothered to take any remedial measures, which they are under a legal obligation to
do.
22. That I say and submit that the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directly
responsible for all the damage caused to my said property and the suffering to me and
my family, and therefore, they are not only liable to take remedial action at their cost,
but they are also liable to compensate and pay damages to me.
23. That I state that in the present conditions, the value of his property has also been
greatly reduced since no one would buy my property today so that I could move to some
other area.
24. That I am now forced to think that the Opposite Party No. 1 was and has all along been
in the know of the said Latent Defect and had concealed the same from me only with a
view to lure me to purchase the said defective Property and seems to have made the
said representation only to defraud and cheat me and the said representation and the
assurance was made only in words never to fulfill, since none came to visit the
deponent till date. I was made to learn the same of my own.
25. That since inspite of various promises and assurance no body visited the premises. I
made several Telephone calls to the Opposite Parties, but of no avail.
26. That I then at last was compelled to visit the Respondent No. 1 and 2, who informed me
that they were helpless on account of the attitude and behavior of the other
respondents, who were responsible for providing the said service and requested me to
contact the said Respondents directly to get the service done.
27. That I state that I approached the Respondent No. 2 on 4 th April 2014. Finding no other
option, When I went to the office of the Respondent no.2 in order to get redress to the
problems being faced by me, first, the respondent no.2 did not give any suitable reply
and thereafter brushed aside the same on the ground that the Respondent had already
sold the said property and was no more responsible for the same. The said failure on
the part of the Respondent No. 2 amounts to Unfair Trade Practice and is to dealt with
by this Hon’ble Forum.
28. That I state that even thereafter, having no recourse, I visited the respondent no1 many
times at the cost of her work, but they also made only false promises and no body
visited my place to solve my problem.
29. That I inspite of my busy schedule made so many personal visits etc. at the cost of my
professional duties, but they did not take any action.
30. That I state that being aggrieved of this non co-operative attitude and not getting any
response to the repeated complaints, I was left with no alternative but to take the legal
action against the respondents.
31. That I am a victim of the Unfair Trade Practices of the Respondents and have been
suffering a lot on that account. I am not in a position to reap the benefit of my purchase
on account of neglect and callous behavior of the Respondents.
32. That I state that in view of the said attitude of the Respondents, the goods offered by
the respondents are highly unsatisfactory and deficient and in fact are lying completely
unused and unutilized and in the manner of negligent and I am entitled to the
compensation for the said deficiency in service. Hence I am entitled to file the present
complaint before this Hon’ble District Forum.
33. That I state that although the suffering caused to me and my family is immeasurable in
terms of money, yet I modestly puts them to the following estimates:
I: Mental agony and aggravation of asthmatic conditions

suffered, by me and my family : Rs. 3,00,000/-
II : Loss of business suffered by me : Rs. 1,00,000/-
III : Loss on account of reduction of the

value of his property : Rs. 5,00,000/-
IV : Exemplary damages : Rs. 50,000/-
V : Cost incurred while engaging M/s Sharma & Associates to

investigate and take remedial measures in my flat
: Rs. 50,000/-
VI : Estimated Cost of Repairs : Rs. 3,60,000/-

_______________
Rs. 13,60,000/-
_______________
34. That I respectfully submit that apart from the above said sum of Rs.13,60,000/- which I
am entitled to seek against the defendant towards damages and compensation, to the
my flat till such time the remedial action is not taken.
35. That I state that the value of goods/service and compensation claimed is Rs.13,60,000/-
plus 12% interest.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :
Verified at Delhi on this …….day of March, 2015 that the contents of the foregoing
paras of the above Affidavit are true and correct as per my knowledge and nothing
contained therein is false. Nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ITO, VIKAS
BHAWAN, NEW DELHI
COMPLAINT No. of 2014

In Matter of :-
RICHA JINDAL COMPLAINANT
Versus
Mrs. PUNAM GOYAL & ors. OPPOSITE PARTIES
REPLICATION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT TO THE REPLY OF THE

OPPOSITE PARTIES NO.1 & 2
RESPECFULLY SHOWETH :
1. That the contents of para No.1 of the reply are being matter of record.
2. That the contents of para No.2 of the reply are wrong and hence denied. It is denied
that the complaint is devoid of merit being baseless and the same is not maintainable.
Rest of the allegations are also denied.
3. That the contents of para No.3 & 4 of the reply are wrong and hence denied.
4. That the contents of para No.5 of the reply are wrong and hence denied. It is denied
that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer.
5. That the contents of para No. 6 & 7 of the reply are wrong and hence denied. It is
denied that the alleged complaint is not a case of unfair trade practices. Other
allegations are False and without any basis, as such denied. Rest of the allegations are
also denied.
6. That the contents of para No.8 of the reply are wrong and hence denied. Other
allegations are False and without any basis, as such denied. It is denied that there was
any technical fault in the basement or there was never any seepage in the said
property.
7. That the contents of para No.9 & 10 of the reply are wrong and hence denied. The
contents of corresponding para of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. Other
allegations are False and without any basis, as such denied. It is denied that the
complainant after purchase, had done any illegal construction or it dangerous to the
existing structures of property.
8. That the contents of para No.11, 12 & 13 of the reply are wrong and hence denied. The
contents of corresponding para of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. It is also wrong
to say that the intentions behind the complaint are perverse, malafide and the same is
done with ulterior motive to extort money.
9. That the contents of para No.14 of the reply are wrong and hence denied. The contents
of corresponding para of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. It is denied that the
complainant is attempting to mislead this Hon’ble Forum. Other allegations are False
and without any basis, as such denied.
Replication to the Reply on Merits :
10. That the contents of the para no. 1 of the written statement need no reply as the same
are not disputed.
11. That the contents of the para no.2 & 3 of the written statement are wrong and denied
and the corresponding paras of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. Other allegations
are False and without any basis, as such denied.
12. That the contents of the para no.4, 5 & 6 of the written statement are wrong and denied
are False and without any basis, as such denied. The reply to this para has already
been replied in the preceding paras.
13. That the contents of the para no.7 & 8 of the written statement are wrong and denied
14. That the contents of the para no. 9 of the written statement need no reply as the same
are admitted by the opposite parties. The corresponding paras of the plaint are correct
and reaffirmed.
15. That the contents of the para no. 10 & 11 of the written statement are wrong and denied
16. That the contents of the para no. 12 of the written statement are wrong and denied and
the corresponding paras of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. Other allegations are
False and without any basis, as such denied. The reply to this para has already been
replied in the preceding paras. It is denied that as per the knowledge of the opposite
parties, there was never leakage, flooding of water even at the time when the basement
was sold by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant. It is vehemently denied that only
after illegal and irregular constructions carried out the aforesaid problems have arisen.
It is totally denied the complainant has altered the original plan/shape of the portion of
the disputed property.
17. That the contents of the para no. 13, 14 & 15 of the written statement are wrong and
denied and the corresponding paras of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. Other
allegations are False and without any basis, as such denied. The reply to this para has
already been replied in the preceding paras. However, it is submitted that at time of
purchasing the property, the property was under construction and seepage problem
cannot be observed within a day or two.
It is further submitted that in the property the wooden work does not mean any
alteration in the original shape and construction, much less which may invite any
seepage in the building. It is submitted that the opposite parties have failed to explain
what type of alteration or construction has been done to the original shape of the portion
of the property in dispute, which might have caused the so called seepage. No such
inspection has been done as alleged.
the corresponding paras of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. Other
allegations are False and without any basis, as such denied. The reply to this para has
already been replied in the preceding paras. It is submitted that the opposite parties
failed to prove that complainant has done any illegal construction.
False and without any basis, as such denied. The reply to this para has already been
replied in the preceding paras.
the corresponding paras of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. Other
allegations are False and without any basis, as such denied.
21. That the contents of the para no.19 of the written statement are wrong and denied and
False and without any basis, as such denied. It is denied that contents are a mere
repetition of the contentions of the complainant.
the corresponding paras of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. The contents of para
under reply may be read as part and parcel of this replication as the same are being
repeated for the sake of brevity. Other allegations are False and without any basis, as
such denied. It is denied that the damage to the property is not on account of the
alleged carelessness and negligence on the part of opposite party no.1 and 2. It is
further denied that there was never any defect in the said property since the basement
area was under the peaceful possession of opposite party no.1 for a period of almost
four years. It is however submitted that opposite no.2 is a company owned and run by
the husband of opposite party no.1. It is also totally denied that defects in the property
are attributed on account of complainant herself. It is vehemently denied that she has
not only carelessly but also negligently carried out illegal and irregular construction in
the basement area. It is also denied that illegal and irregular construction has caused
grave damage to the existing structures since the alleged problem as alleged by the
complainant have come to the light after illegal and irregular construction carried out by
the complainant. It is however submitted that the complainant has only got the wooden
work done in the property and the wooden work does not need any alteration in the
amount of original shape and in this manner the alleged problem of the complainant
cannot be created by the complainant herself. It is also submitted that opposite parties
never visited to inspect the property despite various reminders and repeated requests
made by the complainant and there is total failure on the part of opposite parties as they
never cared or tried to sort out the problem of the complainant. It is also denied that
complainant being an advocate has acted out of the ambit of law or has flouted the
prevailing building bye laws on the contrary the opposite party has made false
allegation on the complainant. It is absolutely wrong to say that the complainant has not
taken any prior sanction from Municipal Corporation of Delhi and it is also wrong to say
that she has made any illegal or irregular construction on the contrary, it is however
stated that the complainant has only got some wooden work done for storing and
housing her library, books and files and other records as she is an advocate by an
profession and the wooden work does not need any alteration or irregular or illegal
construction.
the corresponding paras of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. The contents of
para under reply may be read as part and parcel of this replication as the same are
being repeated for the sake of brevity. Other allegations are False and without any
basis, as such denied. It is denied that the complainant has very cunningly passed on
the burden of repair on the opposite parties under the pretext that there was latent
defect in the structure. It is however submitted that in order to save their skin, the
opposite parties has put all the blame on the complainant. It is also stated that the
opposite parties in connivance with each other has cheated the complainant by selling
their defaulted property to the complainant as the seepage is such a problem which can
be detected afterwards only not at the time of purchasing. It is also stated that opposite
party no.2 is the company of the husband of the opposite no.1 and opposite party no.3
is a partner in the company of the husband of opposite party no.1.
repeated for the sake of brevity. Other allegations are False and without any
basis, as such denied. It is denied that the adequate and requisite care was taken
while constructing the underground water tanks and there was never any problem of
seepage, when the said property was under the possession of opposite party no.1 & 2.
the corresponding paras of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. The contents of
basis, as such denied. It is denied that the complainant has never made any call or visit
to the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.
such denied. It is denied that the alleged investigation has been carried out by the
complainant was never brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties. It is also
denied that the services of Mr. C. L. Jindal and Mr. M.R. Gupta have been taken up by
the complainant to cover up her own negligence and carelessness while carrying the
illegal and irregular construction. On the contrary there was only wooden work being
carried out by the complainant and wooden work does not need any alteration and the
services of Mr. C. L. Jindal and Mr. M.R. Gupta Water Proofing Engineers and
Contractors have been taken to get the problem sort out.
such denied. It is however submitted that the opinion of aforesaid two individuals is
important for proving the fact of existing alleged fault with the construction of the
existing structures as they are the professionals and are expert in their field. The reply
to this para has already been replied in the preceding paras.
such denied. The reply to this para has already been replied in the preceding paras.
and the corresponding paras of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. The contents of
basis, as such denied. The reply to this para has already been replied in the preceding
paras. In order to reply that opposite party no.2 had constructed the property and sold
the property to opposite party no.1, it is also stated that opposite party no.2 is the
company of the husband of the opposite no.1 and opposite party no.3 is a partner in the
company of the husband of opposite party no.1 so therefore in connivance with each
other they have cheated the complainant by selling the defaulted property. In this
manner all allegations alleged by the opposite party in this para are false and concocted
and hence the same are denied.
such denied. The reply to this para has already been replied in the preceding paras. It is
denied that the present allegations that the complainant has been cheated and
defrauded by the opposite party no.1 are baseless and devoid of any merit whatsoever.
denied that the opposite party have no knowledge of the alleged calls made by the
complainant.
34. That the contents of the para no. 33, 34 & 35 of the written statement are wrong and
denied and the corresponding paras of the plaint are correct and reaffirmed. The
contents of para under reply may be read as part and parcel of this replication as the
same are being repeated for the sake of brevity. Other allegations are False and
without any basis, as such denied. The reply to this para has already been replied in the
preceding paras. It is also denied that the complainant has never made any visit to the
opposite parties.
denied that the present complaint has no basis or the same has been filed with ulterior
motive of extorting money from the opposite party.
also denied that the present complaint has no unfair trade practice on the part of
opposite parties.
such denied. The reply to this para has already been replied in the preceding paras. It
is denied that the complainant is attempting to mislead this Hon’ble Forum since there
was no contract between the complainant and opposite parties for providing any service
whatsoever. It is denied that the complainant is not maintainable and the same is
baseless, erroneous and devoid of merit.
paras. It is however submitted that in order to save their skin, the opposite parties has
put all the blame on the complainant. It is also stated that the opposite parties in
connivance with each other has cheated the complainant by selling their defaulted
property to the complainant as the seepage is such a problem which can be detected
afterwards only not at the time of purchasing.
paras. It is denied that the no claim whatsoever lies against the opposite parties. It is
also denied that no cause of action has arisen at any point of time in favour of
complainant. It is also denied that the instant complaint is not maintainable under the
provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
denied that Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint
in view of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is denied that the
complaint is baseless, erroneous an devoid of merit since the complaint is not against
the purchase or service of goods, rather the portion of the property in question is a
matter of immoveable property an same is covered by the Transfer of property Act.
41. Last para is reply to the prayer and the contents of the same are wrong and denied and
prayer clause of the plaint is correct and reaffirmed. It is submitted that the complaint
may be allowed by this Hon’ble Forum.
It is therefore prayed that the relief as prayed for in the plaint may be granted in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
It is prayed accordingly.
COMPLAINANT
Through
Place : ………
Dated : ……… ADVOCATE
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, NEW DELHI
COMPLAINT NO. OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF
RICHA JINDAL
D/O LATE SHRI K.C. JINDAL
R/O B-7/86/1, DDA FLATS
SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE
NEW DELHI-110029 Deponent
Versus
1. Mrs. PUNAM GOYAL,
W/O SHRI JOGINDER KUMAR GOYAL,
R/O G-94, THIRD FLOOR,
SAKET, NEW DELHI 110017
2. M/S. J. K. GOYAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,

D-71, GROUND FLOOR,
MALVIYA NAGAR,
NEW DELHI
3. MR. P. P. SHARMA
SON OF MR. C. B. SHARMA
T-23, KHIRKI EXTENSION,
MALVIYA NAGAR., NEW DELHI Opposite Party
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT FOR

GRANT OF COMPENSATION AND REFUND OF THE PRICE PAID ALONGWITH
INTEREST AND DAMAGES
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :
 That the deponent is an advocate of more than 13 years standing and is practicing in
various courts of India.
 That the Deponent has been working for a number of clients, including various Insurance
Companies, DDA, DSIIDC, Govt of NCT of DELHI and other reputed Clients.
 That in order to smoothly perform her professional duties and to update her knowledge, she
needed some space for her personal use and in search thereof, approached the
opposite party No. 1 and accordingly after a lot of discussions and deliberations, both
parties agreed to enter into an agreement whereby the Deponent agreed to purchase
and the Opposite Party No. 1 agreed to Sell her 50 % right in the Basement Floor
admeasuring about 900 sq. ft. alongwith Car Parking Space in the stilt Area in the
Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi vide Sale Deed dated16th May, 2013 duly registered as
Document No. 2566 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 307 on pages 24 to 35 on 22-5-2013 in
the office of the Sub Registrar – V-A, New Delhi and since then has been in possession
thereof.
 That the claim of compensation and/or redressal of grievances of the Deponent does not
exceed Rs. 20 lakhs and is well within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.
 That the present complaint relates to the cheating as well as unfair trade practice with
regard to the said property purchased by the deponent from the Respondent/ Opposite
Party No.1.
 That this application is being filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action for making
this application and is well within time.
 The various facts giving rise to the grievance of the Deponent are shortly described below:
 That on 2nd June 2013 as stated above, the deponent visited the said property of the
Respondent No.1 and believing the representations made by the Respondent No. 1,
was lured to purchase said property for her personal use.
 That it was represented by the Opposite Party No. 1 to the Deponent at the time of
the said deal as follows:
 A Residential Plot of Land bearing No. D-258, measuring 220 sq. yds.
Situated at Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi was allotted by the DDA /
President of India vide Perpetual Lease Deed dated 29-8-1968 to one, Shri
Om Prakash Sood.
 Shri Om Prakash Sood entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 25-6-2003
with one, Shri Ashwani Wadhera and executed a GPA in his favour.
 Mr. Om Prakash Sood also got the said Property converted freehold from
Leasehold vide Conveyance deed dated 15-7-2003 registered as Document
No. 2516 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 951 on pages 98 to 99 in the office of
the Sub Registrar, New Delhi.
 Mr. Om Prakash Sood gifted the Ground Floor thereof to his son, Mr. Vinod
Kumar Sood, who in turn sold the same to Mr. P. P. Sharma, the Opposite
Party No. 3 vide Sale deed dated 26-11-2009 registered as Document No.
15659 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 9674 on pages 130 to 137 on 27-11-2009
in the office of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi.
 Mr. Om Prakash Sood sold the entire Terrace of First Floor to Mrs. Aparna
Wadhera, who constructed the Second Floor thereon, who in turn sold the
same to Mr. P. P. Sharma the Opposite Party No. 3 vide Sale deed dated 4-3-
2010 registered as Document No. 3502 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 9930 on
pages 75 to 85 on 9-3-2010 in the office of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi..
 Mr. Om Prakash Sood sold the entire First Floor to one, Mrs. Bimla Gautam
on 22-8-2003, who in turn sold the same to Mr. P. P. Sharma the Opposite
Party No. 3 vide Sale deed dated 4-3-2010 registered as Document No. 3501
in Book No. 1, Volume No. 9930 on pages 67 to 74 on 9-3-2010 in the office
of the Sub Registrar, New Delhi.
 Mr. P. P. Sharma got the Plans sanctioned and constructed a building
thereon consisting of the Basement, Stilt, Ground, First, Second and the Third
Floors as per Building Plan sanctioned vide File No. 82/b/SZ/I/SP/10/R-27
dated 26-3-2010 through M/s. J. K. Goyal Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., the
Opposite Party No. 2.
 Mr. P. P. Sharma further appointed the said Opposite Party No. 2 as the
General Attorney vide GPA dated _______ duly registered as Document No.
1519 in Addl. Book No. IV, Volume No. 3522 on pages 176 to 184 on 15-3-
2010 , who under the said authority sold the property in question, being 50 %
right in the Basement Floor admeasuring about 900 sq. ft. alongwith Car
Parking Space in the stilt Area in the Property No. D-258, erected on a plot of
land measuring 220 sq. yds situated at Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi vide
Sale Deed dated 20th May, 2011 duly registered as Document No. 7832 in
Book No. 1, Volume No. 11172 on pages 01 to 09 on 28-5-2011 in the office
of the Sub Registrar – V, New Delhi to the Opposite Party No.1.
 The opposite Party No. 1 sold the said property in question, being 50 % right
in the Basement Floor admeasuring about 900 sq. ft. alongwith Car Parking
Space in the stilt Area in the Property No. D-258, erected on a plot of land
measuring 220 sq. yds situated at Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi vide Sale
Deed dated 16th May, 2013 duly registered as Document No. 2566 in Book
No. 1, Volume No. 307 on pages 24 to 35 on 22-5-2013 in the office of the
Sub Registrar – V, New Delhi to the Deponent.
 That one, Shri Rajendra Gupta is stated to have purchased the Upper Ground
Floor of the said Property from the Opposite Party No. 1.
 That one, Shri C. M. Kapur is stated to have purchased the First Floor of the
said Property from the Opposite Party No. 1.
 That one, Mrs. Kalpana Chandra is stated to have purchased the Second
Floor of the said Property from the Opposite Party No. 1.
 That one, Shri Praveen Gulati is stated to have purchased the Third Floor of
the said Property from the Opposite Party No. 1.
 That as per the Sale transaction, the Deponent has become the Owner of the
aforesaid portion of the said Property.
 Mr. Rajendra Gupta is now maintaining the said property for and on behalf of all the
Owners of the various portions with the help of funds contributed by all the
occupiers.
 Mr. Anil Kumar is occupying the First floor, Mr. Anil Khattar is occupying the Second
Floor, Mrs. Reena Gupta is occupying the Third Floor.
 In order to provide water to the upper floors, the opposite Party No. 2 has kept and /
or installed the underground Water Tanks on the Basement / Ground Floor in the
other half basement of the said property, underground water tanks of other floors.
The said Tanks are built adjacent to the basement wall of the portion owned and
occupied by the Deponent.
 That at the time of purchase of the said property by the Deponent, the Respondent
no.1 assured and represented to the Deponent that the property was in good
condition and that as such there has never been any seepage problem.
 That after purchasing the said Property, the deponent, who is an Advocate by
profession, spent huge amount of her hard earned money on wood work in the
basement for storing and housing her library, books and files and other records.
 That to the utter shock of the Deponent, the deponent found that huge amount of
water flooded into the basement through walls, even though there was no rain or
other overflow of Water outside.
 Due to said seepage of Water the records and books and furniture belonging to the
Deponent were spoiled and the Deponent had to call for the services of some Civil
Engineers, who opined that the Opposite Party No. 2 failed to take necessary
precaution while constructing the underground water tanks and basement at the time
of construction and has failed to further ensure that no water or seepage came into
the basement thereby. The said defect is a latent defect, which can not be detected
by a man of ordinary prudence without the services of some expert.
 That the seepage from the said Underground Water Tanks has made the entire
basement utterly damp. The said seepage is also emitting bad and obnoxious smell,
which offends the Complainat, her employees and her clients and visitors. This has
also affected the health of the Deponent and her visitors and employees.
 The deponent's practice has been affected adversely, since her clients do not want
to come there.
 There is a crust of fungal growth on the affected portion of the walls, wooden
Almirah, book shelf as well as on the law books lying , which after drying and mixing
with the surrounding atmosphere affect the deponent and her employees. The
doctors have suggested that it they continue to inhale fungus, it would aggravate
their lungs and may create asthmatic conditions.
 That the plaintiff states the damage to her property has been caused on account of
carelessness and negligence on the part of the opposite Parties Nos. 1,2, and 3, ,
since the said persons are responsible for the bad workmenship and / or for non
maintenance of their respective Underground Water Tanks and the Pipelines leading
to and from the same.
 That their persistent refusal to carry out the requisite repair work in the underground
water tanks and for maintaining the same is causing undue hardship and damage to
the Deponent and her property.
 That the Opposite Parties have not taken adequate and requisite care while
constructing and maintaining the underground water tanks as a result of which there
is extensive seepage to the Deponent's portion of the Property. Further, despite
being made aware of the damage and hardships suffered by the deponent and her
employees on account of the above said seepage, but the Opposite Parties have not
bothered to take any remedial measures.
 That inspite of busy schedule the deponent, she made various calls and personal
visits, but the Opposite Parties did not took any step to rectify said problem and have
failed to repair the aforesaid Underground Water Tanks and the Pipelines leading
thereto, whereby a lot of water floods into the said basement portion belonging to the
Deponent.
 That the deponent states that thereafter, after giving the Opposite Parties prior
information the Deponent engaged the services of one, Mr. C.L. Jindal, and one,
Mr. M. R. Gupta, Water Proofing, Engineering & Contractors, to have the damage
through seepage investigated and assessed. The said engineers started his work of
investigation and assessment Even in this process of investigation and assessment,
the Opposite Parties did not co-operate, and did everything possible within their
means to delay and stop the work, and the investigation into the cause of the
seepage.
 That the deponent states that according to the opinion of the said engineers, the
damage is being caused by the faulty construction and, inadequate water-proofing
and accumulation of water in the adjacent wall of basement. Mr Gupta also opined
that in case, immediate remedial measures are not taken by the opposite Parties,
then the seepage is likely to spread to other portion of the deponent's property and
to the very foundation of the Building and shall also affect the cantilevers in walls
and pillars of the building, thereby endangering the entire structure of the building
itself. According to the aforesaid Mr. C. L. Jindal, the total estimated cost of the work
for remedying the seepage and damage caused by it to be done in the affected
portion of the Underground Water Tank belonging to the Opposite Parties is
estimated at approximately Rs. 3,60,000/- .
 That the Deponent further states that despite the advice of the above named Mr.
Gupta, and passage of now about more than six months, the Opposite Parties have
not taken any action as promised by them. In the meanwhile, the damage to the
deponent’s property is worsening. The seepage of said water has made the entire
basement adjoining the under water tanks utterly damp. The seepage is also
emitting bad and obnoxious smell, which offends the deponent, her family
members, her employees and her client visiting to the said property.
 That the deponent states the damage to her property has been caused on account
of carelessness and negligence on the part of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 , and
the persistent refusal of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 to carry out and / or
persistent neglect to effect the repair work. The Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 had not
taken adequate and requisite care while constructing the said Underground water
tanks. Further, despite being made aware of the damage and hardships suffered by
the deponent and his family on account of the above said seepage to her property
the Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 have not bothered to take any remedial measures,
which they are under a legal obligation to do, hence this Complaint.
 That the deponent says and submits that the Opposite Parties are jointly and
severally directly responsible for all the damage caused to the deponent’s said
property and the suffering to her and her family, and therefore, they are not only
liable to take remedial action at their cost, but they are also liable to compensate and
pay damages to the deponent.
 In the present conditions, the value of his property has also been greatly reduced
since no one would buy her property today so that she could move to some other
area.
 That the Deponent is now forced to think that the Opposite Party No. 1 was and has all
along been in the know of the said Latent Defect and had concealed the same from the
Deponent only with a view to lure her to purchase the said defective Property and
seems to have made the said representation only to defraud and cheat the Deponent
and the said representation and the assurance was made only in words never to fulfill,
since none came to visit the Deponent till date. The Deponent was made to learn the
same of her own.
 That since inspite of various promises and assurance no body visited the premises of the
deponent. The Deponent made several Telephone calls to the Opposite Parties, but of
no avail.
 That the Deponent then at last was compelled to visit the Respondent No. 1 and 2, who
informed the Deponent that they were helpless on account of the attitude and behavior
of the other Respondents, who were responsible for providing the said service and
requested the Deponent to contact the said Respondents directly to get the service
done.
 That the Deponent approached the Respondent No. 2 on 4 th April 2014 .Finding no other
option, When the deponent went to the office of the Respondent no.2 in order to get
redress to the problems being faced by her, first, the respondent no.2 did not give any
suitable reply and thereafter brushed aside the same on the ground that the
Respondent had already sold the said property and was no more responsible for the
same. The said failure on the part of the Respondent No. 2 amounts to Unfair Trade
Practice and is to dealt with by this Hon’ble Forum.
 That even thereafter, having no recourse, the deponent visited the respondent no1 many
times at the cost of her work, but they also made only false promises and no body
visited the place of deponent to solve her problem.
 That the deponent inspite of her busy schedule made so many personal visits etc. at the
cost of her professional duties, but they did not take any action.
 Being aggrieved of this non co-operative attitude and not getting any response to the
repeated complaints, the deponent was left with no alternative but to take the legal
action against the respondents.
 That the Deponent is a victim of the Unfair Trade Practices of the Respondents and has
been suffering a lot on that account. She is not in a position to reap the benefit of her
purchase on account of neglect and callous behavior of the Respondents.
 That the deponent is a “consumer ” of service within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the deponent purchased the said Air
Conditioner is covered under the act and the deponent who purchase such Air
Conditioners for consideration is a “consumer”. As the expression “consumer” contained
in Section 2 (1) (d) takes in any person who purchase any goods for consideration
which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any
system of deferred payment. Now, the respondent’s action of denying to deliver the
services promised at the time of sale is non co-malicious and indifferent attitude and
contrary to the terms of its own contract, putting the deponent to unnecessary
harassment and inconvenience, all this tantamount to unfair trade practice as indulged
into by the respondents and are against the interest of the consumer who have in good
faith purchased the above product and has availed the services of the respondents.
 That in view of the said attitude of the Respondents, the goods offered by the respondents
are highly unsatisfactory and deficient and in fact are lying completely unused and
unutilized and in the manner of negligent and the deponent is entitled to the
compensation for the said deficiency in service. Hence the deponent is entitled to file
the present complaint before this Hon’ble District Forum.
18. That although the suffering caused to the plaintiff and his family is immeasurable in
terms of money, yet he modestly puts them to the following estimates :
I: Mental agony and aggravation of asthmatic conditions

suffered, by the plaintiff and his family : Rs. 3,00,000/-
II : Loss of business suffered by the plaintiff : Rs. 1,00,000/-
III : Loss on account of reduction of the

value of his property : Rs. 5,00,000/-
IV : Exemplary damages : Rs. 50,000/-
V : Cost incurred while engaging M/s Sharma &

Associates to investigate and take remedial
measures in plaintiff's flat : Rs. 50,000/-
VI : Estimated Cost of Repairs : Rs. 3,60,000/-

_______________
Rs. 13,60,000/-
_______________
 That the plaintiff respectfully submits that apart from the above said sum of
Rs.13,60,000/- which he is entitled to seek against the defendant towards damages and
compensation, to the plaintiff's flat till such time the remedial action is not taken.
 That the cause of action arose in Delhi. The Respondents made supplies from Delhi. They
failed to provide services from their respective offices and work places in Delhi. The
Respondents have their respective offices and work for gain at Delhi. The deponent is
residing at Delhi. Hence this Hon’ble Forum has the Jurisdiction to try the present
Complaint.
 That this Hon’ble Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of section 11
of the consumer protection Act, 1986 as :
 the value of goods/service and compensation claimed is Rs.13,60,000/- plus

12% interest.
 The cause of action having accrued at New Delhi
PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble District Commission may
be pleased to grant the following reliefs to the deponent.
 directing the defendant to carry out remedial and repair work in the offending
under water tanks, at his own cost, so as to ensure that there is no seepage to
any portion of the deponent's property;
 pass a decree awarding damages and compensation of the sum of
Rs.13,60,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakh Sixty Thousand only) in favour of the
deponent and against the defendant ;
 Award interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of supply till the date of
realization in favour of the deponent and against the Opposite Parties in this
regard ;
 Cost of litigation amounting to Rs 25,000/- in favour of the deponent and against

the Opposite Parties in this regard.
 To pass any other order(s) or directions as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
And the deponent as in duty bound shall every pray

FILED BY
Place
Date : November 2014 DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at Delhi on this the …….. day of SEPTEMBER 2014 that the contents of
Para No. 1 to 15 of the complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
those of para 16 to 20 of the complaint are based on legal advice, which I verify
believing to be true. Last Para is prayer clause to this Hon’ble Court.
DEPONENT
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, NEW DELHI
COMPLAINT NO. OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF
RICHA JINDAL Deponent
Versus
Mrs. PUNAM GOYAL & ors. Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, Miss. Richa Jindal, Advocate D/o Late Shri K.C. Jindal residing at B-7/86/1,
D.D.A. Flats, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029, do hereby solemnly declare and
state as under :
 That I am well versed with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent
therefore to depose the present affidavit.
 That the contents of the accompanying complaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and have been drafted by me.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this ……….Day of September, 2014 that the contents of para 1
& 2 of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT

Richa Jindal Vs Goel Builder Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Richa Jindal Vs Goel Builder Evidence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Richa Jindal Vs Goel Builder Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ITO, VIKAS

BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

COMPLAINT No. of 2014

RICHA JINDAL COMPLAINANT

Mrs. PUNAM GOYAL & ors. Respondent

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

1. That I am an Advocate of more than 13 years standing and is practicing in various

I: Mental agony and aggravation of asthmatic conditions

II : Loss of business suffered by me : Rs. 1,00,000/-

III : Loss on account of reduction of the

IV : Exemplary damages : Rs. 50,000/-

V : Cost incurred while engaging M/s Sharma & Associates to

VI : Estimated Cost of Repairs : Rs. 3,60,000/-

COMPLAINT No. of 2014

REPLICATION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT TO THE REPLY OF THE

Replication to the Reply on Merits :

2. M/S. J. K. GOYAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT FOR

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

terms of money, yet he modestly puts them to the following estimates :

I: Mental agony and aggravation of asthmatic conditions

II : Loss of business suffered by the plaintiff : Rs. 1,00,000/-

III : Loss on account of reduction of the

IV : Exemplary damages : Rs. 50,000/-

V : Cost incurred while engaging M/s Sharma &

VI : Estimated Cost of Repairs : Rs. 3,60,000/-

 the value of goods/service and compensation claimed is Rs.13,60,000/- plus

 The cause of action having accrued at New Delhi

 Cost of litigation amounting to Rs 25,000/- in favour of the deponent and against

And the deponent as in duty bound shall every pray

You might also like