Billed for society maintenance, got ‘broken’ lifts, Delhi couple wins Rs 5 lakh payout

“From the material placed on record it is evident that opposite party (Perfect Facilities Management Private Limited) has failed to carry out its contractual obligations as per the agreement,” the commission said on June 30, directing the company to pay Rs 5 lakh towards compensation for mental agony and failure to provide the promised services.

The dispute arose after the couple purchased a flat in Orchid Metropolis, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi, through a sale deed executed on December 31, 2021. Alleging that repeated complaints and legal notices failed to improve the condition of the complex, they approached the consumer commission in May 2024 seeking compensation for deficiency in service.

Years of neglected maintenance

According to the complaint, the facility management company had entered into a maintenance services agreement on June 25, 2012, with the developer and the previous owner of the apartment. After purchasing the flat, the complainants claimed they became entitled to the rights and benefits available under that agreement.

They alleged that while the company continued raising invoices towards maintenance charges, it failed to discharge its obligations to maintain the common areas and amenities of the residential complex.

The complaint painted a grim picture of the premises. It alleged that the swimming pool had remained unusable for over three to four years, fountains were non-functional, common areas and corridors were dirty, visitor and basement parking spaces were littered with garbage.

They also said that the children’s play area had become unsafe because of scattered bricks and stones, exterior concrete was peeling off the building, lights in corridors and staircases were not functioning, elevators were poorly maintained and often malfunctioned, a staircase balcony lacked proper security, and fire extinguishers were not being periodically checked. The complainants supported their allegations with photographs.

Complaints went unanswered

The complainants stated that after taking possession of the apartment, not a single staff member from the company visited their flat to ascertain whether they were satisfied with the maintenance services. They further stated that they contacted the company’s authorised representative on March 28, 2024, regarding the deficiencies.

Before that, they had issued legal notices on April 11, 2022 and February 11, 2023, but alleged that no corrective measures were taken. Instead, after the second legal notice, the company issued legal notices dated April 21, 2023 and May 9, 2024 demanding outstanding maintenance charges.

The commission noted that despite being served with notice, the company failed to file its written statement within the prescribed period. As a result, its right to file a reply was closed on October 22, 2024, and the complainants’ evidence remained uncontroverted and unrebutted.

Contractual obligations breached

• Examining the maintenance services agreement, the commission noted that the company was responsible for maintaining lifts, basements, parking areas, common spaces, firefighting equipment, water supply systems, electrical infrastructure, landscaping, garbage disposal, security services and other common facilities in the residential complex.
• The bench relied on photographs filed with the complaint as well as additional photographs submitted on April 16, carrying timestamps and GPS coordinates. It observed that the images clearly showed the neglected condition of the complex.
• The swimming pool was non-functional and in a state of neglect, while seepage was visible in the parking area and garbage had accumulated in one corner.
• The commission also noted that although the complainants were obligated under the agreement to pay maintenance charges, the company was equally bound to provide the agreed services.
• It observed that the issue of alleged default by the complainants was raised only after they had issued the second legal notice, but held that this did not absolve the company of its contractual obligations.
• Holding the facility management company guilty of deficiency in service, the commission directed it to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation within three months.
• It further ordered that if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, it would carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum until realization. The commission also awarded Rs 15,000 towards litigation costs.

Consumer takeaway

Residents are entitled to the maintenance services promised under their agreement and can approach consumer commissions if those obligations are not fulfilled. Even where maintenance dues are disputed, service providers cannot shirk their contractual responsibility to maintain common facilities.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi: 1800-11-4000) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.