CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2013.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 07/11/2012
CC/202/2012
K. Krishnakumari, Pensioner,
D/o. Chinnamalu Amma, Govindalayam,
Pattambi, Ottapalam Taluk, - Complainant
Palakkad – 679 303
(By Adv. P.N. Vinod)
Vs
Arunkumar.T,
Legend Royal Infra G128, 3rd Cross,
Panampilly Nagar, Kochi – 36 - Opposite party
Ernakulam District.
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
The case of the complainant is as follows :-
The opposite party entered in to an agreement dated 13/04/2012 with the complainant to construct the foundation and basement of the proposed house according to the plan and specification set forth in the agreement. As per the specifications in the agreement the opposite party is responsible to do random rubble masonry in dry pack up to the top of the yard level of the foundation. The contract is based on a lump-sum amount of Rs. 5,65,000/- and all materials should be supplied by the opposite party. It is specifically agreed by the opposite party that the foundation and basement work has to be completed within 90 days from 13/04/2012, the date of agreement. The period of 90 days from 13/04/2012 expired on 12/07/2012. The only work done by the opposite party is some work towards foundation. Instead of doing random rubble masonry, the opposite party has thrown some rubbles in to the 75 CM trench excavated for the construction. The stones are not even laying stable. They are shaking at many points and no concrete belt can be put up thereon. The entire work so far done is not useful. The dumped rubbles have to be completely removed and fresh construction done by way of actual masonry work and then only the construction can be continued. The complainant has made repeated requests and by notice dated 22nd October 2012 to the opposite party to complete the work of foundation and basement but he has neglected and failed to complete the work. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The opposite pary has received a total amount of Rs. 4,15,000/- from the complainant. He has issued receipts for the same. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the amounts paid.
So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to refund of the amount paid that is Rs. 4,15,000/- along with Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with interest at 18% per annum and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite pary notice served. Not appeared before the Forum and set exparte.
Complainant filed chief affidavit. Ext A1 to A8 marked. An expert Commissioner was appointed and filed report marked as Ext. C1.
Issues to be considered are :-
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?
If so what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & II
The main grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has not completed the work within the stipulated time as per the agreement. The only work done by the opposite party is some work towards foundation. The complainant alleges many defects in the work done by the opposite party. Instead of doing random rubble masonry the opposite party has thrown some rubbles in to the 75 CM trench excavated for the construction. No concrete belt can be put up thereon. The dumped rubbles have to be completely removed and fresh construction is needed. Then only the further construction can be continued.
We have gone through the documents on record. The agreement dated 13/04/2012 which is marked as Ext. A1. As per Ext. A1 the specification for constructing the foundation and basement is as follows.
Foundation
1:4:8 PCC IN 75 CM wide trench Random rubble masonry in dry pack up to the top of the yard level of the foundation.
Basement
31 CM high and 45 CM wide Coursed rubble masonry provided with 15 CM Thick RCC RAFT with 1:2:4 concrete steel shall be provided 10 MM and 8 MM TMT Bar. Red earth filling inside the basement.
Commission report is the important evidence in this case that is marked as Ext. C1. As per Ext. C1, 70% of foundation work finished. Basement work and filling with earth not started. The size of the rubble used is very small. The workmanship of rubble work is very poor. After proper repair at some location the foundation can be used for further construction. Approximately Rs. 3 lakhs is already expended for the work done. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- may be required for rectifiction works.
In the basis of the observation made by the commission in Ext. C1, the defects alleged by the complainant in the construction work is genuine.
The complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 4,15,000/- to the opposite party. Ext. A4 to A8 reveals the same. As per Ext. C1 the opposite party is liable to refund Rs. 1,15,000/- to the complainant. Ext. C1 also states that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is required for rectifiction works.
In the above stated facts and circumstances we are of the view that the opposite party commits deficiency of service on their part.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- ( Rupees One lakh Fourty thousand only) to the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 4,000/- ( Rupees Four thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of January, 2013.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Copy of agreement dtd. 13/04/2012.
Ext.A2 – Copy of plan of the house, annexed to the agreement.
Ext. A3 – Copy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposie party dtd. 22/10/2012.
Ext.A4 – Copy of receipt for Rs. 25,000/- issued by opposite party dtd. 27/03/2012
Ext.A5 - Copy of receipt for Rs. 1,75,000/- issued by opposite party dtd. 23/04/12.
Ext. A6- Copy of receipt for Rs. 1,00,000/- issued by opposite party dtd. 12/04/12.
Ext. A7- Copy of receipt for 75,000/- issued by opposite party dtd. 06/06/2012.
Ext. A8 - Copy of receipt for 40,000/- issued by opposite party dtd. 05/10/2012.
Exhibitsmarked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Commission report
Ext. C1 – Mohandas. K.A.
Cost allowed
Rs. 4,000/-( Rupees Four thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.
