Home Australia We thought we had purchased the perfect family home to raise our young son. But the former owner of the house was hiding a dark secret…

We thought we had purchased the perfect family home to raise our young son. But the former owner of the house was hiding a dark secret…

0 comment
Davinder Singh Rahal (right) was ordered to pay almost $1 million after selling a water-damaged house to a young couple (pictured with former Governor-General Sir Jerry Mateparae while receiving the Queen's Service Medal for his services to the Indian community in 2012).

The seller of a water-damaged home has been ordered to pay the young couple he deceived nearly $1 million.

The High Court this week declared that Davinder Singh Rahal and his company First Trust Ltd were liable for damages and repairs after the property was sold in March 2020 to Ameet Bhargav and his wife Renu.

Judge Anne Hinton said Rahal, a Winner of the Queen’s Service Medal in New Zealand authorized cosmetic repairs to conceal significant water damage and deliberately did not disclose the defect during the sale.

Rahal could now face revocation of the medal, which was awarded for his service to the Indian community, and could also lose his justice of the peace orders, reports the New Zealand Herald.

The case had already gone to court once in 2022, where a similar ruling was found, but was returned to court after Rahal questioned the amount of damages and that he had been aware of the water damage.

Davinder Singh Rahal (right) was ordered to pay almost $1 million after selling a water-damaged house to a young couple (pictured with former Governor-General Sir Jerry Mateparae while receiving the Queen’s Service Medal for his services to the Indian community in 2012)

A court found that Rahal had ordered cosmetic repairs to

A court found that Rahal had ordered cosmetic repairs to “cover” mold and rot on the wood.

A real estate agent who sold the property to Rahal in 2019 told the court he had clearly told potential buyers there were “waterproofing issues” and there were “obvious signs of leaks and damage” to the house.

The agent said Rahal told him “that wasn’t a problem since he would fix it” and that he had done similar repairs on other homes.

An elderly prospective buyer who saw the property when it was for sale told the court it was obvious “it was a leaky house”.

Property problems included rainwater seeping into the structure and causing mold and wood rot.

The young couple who bought the house have lived in the musty property for four years, with a young child, while they fought Rahal in court, racking up about $400,000 in legal costs.

The couple was awarded repair costs of $750,000 plus another $250,000 in damages.

They are worried about not seeing any money despite the ruling, as Rahal’s bathroom company was recently liquidated with $1.8 million in unpaid debts.

‘We always feel stressed. We cry every day and we are still not sure whether we will get our money back or not,” said Mr. Bhargav.

He added that Rahal’s behavior was “shameful for the Indian community.”

Ameet Bhargav and his wife Renu bought the house in 2020 and have been fighting Rahal in court since

Ameet Bhargav and his wife Renu bought the house in 2020 and have been fighting Rahal in court since

Rahal argued that he was never told about the problems even though the property smelled “damp and moldy.”

“If I ever heard the word ‘leaking,’ I’ll run away from that house… I never would have moved on.”

But Judge Hinton said in her ruling that that was “implausible.”

“I am convinced that Mr. Rahal was aware of the ‘cover-up’ work carried out after the purchase, and in fact authorized it,” she wrote.

A real estate agent who worked on the sale and a building inspection company that rated the house as weatherproof settled claims against it last year for undisclosed amounts.

Rahal issued a statement following the court’s decision.

“I totally disagree with the court’s decision as it was never my intention to mislead or mislead anyone,” he said.

‘I also do not agree with the amount of money that has been awarded to both First Trust Limited and me personally.

‘Accordingly, First Trust Limited and I intend to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.’

You may also like