BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 353/2009 Filed on 25.12.2009

Dated : 31.08.2010

Complainant:

Shiji Antony, T.C 30/1578(2), Malman Villa, Thoppil Lane, Pettah P.O, Pallimukku, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Sajeev Kumar. P)

Opposite party :

Ashraf Khan, Septagon Constructions, Sham Nivas, Revi Nagar, A-31, Ambalamukku, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 27.07.2010, the Forum on 31.08.2010 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

The facts of the case are as follows: Complainant entrusted the construction work of his house to the opposite party who is a professional builder during August 2008. The pucca residential building in Survey No. 104/2-1 of Vanchiyoor village is having two stories. The total plinth area is 2350 sq. ft as per plan. The estimated cost of construction is Rs. 24,00,000/-. Later the hall was extended and some additional works were incorporated in original plan and an additional cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- was also paid apart from the building materials supplied. The whole project was a turn key project. But the work lagged for additional 4 months. The house warming ceremony could be conducted only on 20.05.2009. The work of the opposite party was not up to the mark. There are some structural defects in the building. There is a seepage of water in the roof of car porch and also in the hall and in the roof of the 1^st floor. Though the roof of the second floor is slanting and paved with terra-cotta tile there is leak in the roof. During rain the water from the front terrace is entering the first floor through the door opening to terrace. This occurred solely due to poor workmanship of the opposite party. The slopping of the said terrace is defective. No expertise and professional oversight is seen in the work done by the opposite party. The opposite party had not done the painting work satisfactorily. The electric connection was not changed to domestic as the electrician of the builder was not having valid licence. The complainant had to employ another electrician for the necessary work. The complainant had to suffer huge loss due to the deficiency of service from the opposite party. The complainant had to bear the labour cost for the wood work in kitchen contrary to the contract. The expensive sanitary fittings in bath rooms were made to be purchased by the complainant. The complainant was made to do so against the contract. The difference in price for quality materials like flooring tiles and all were paid by the complainant. Hence this complaint for compensation and cost.

The notice issued to the opposite party from the Forum returned 'unclaimed'. Hence opposite party remains exparte.

The complainant has filed affidavit and marked Ext. P1. An expert commissioner was appointed by the Forum to ascertain the defects alleged in the complaint and the reports were marked as Ext. C1 and C1(a). The complainant has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant's allegation is that the work of the opposite party was not up to the mark and that there is leakage in the roof, the sloping of the terrace was defective and poor workmanship etc etc. The expert commissioner has filed his report. The commissioner has reported the following defects in the building. Defects in this building are caused due to (a) deviation of construction from the approved plan, (b) unskilled works especially in masonary work such as brick up work, concreting, plastering, flooring etc. and (c) Roof slabs made are not water proof. Rain water and water from toilets in first floor percolating in the roof slab in more than twenty places which will cause corrosion in the reinforcement, decolouration of ceilings as well as falling of water in floors. This may be because of improper filling of concrete or usage of sub standard concrete materials such as river sand, and 20 mm stone aggregate. Ground floor and first floor flooring is paved with 2x1 foot Granite tile (mirror polishing) which is not in level for which only removing those uneven tile with same coloured tile will be the only remedy. The commissioner has filed his detailed report explaining all the defects and the reason for the same. Furthermore the expert commissioner has in detail explained the remedies for rectifying the same. Commissioner has reported that for rectifying the above defects to make this residential building habitable Rs. 1,57,978/- is very much essential otherwise it will adversely affect the life of the building and thereby the life of the inhabitants. Ext. C1 has not been challenged. No objection has been filed for the same by the opposite party. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in constructing the building.

In view of the above discussions and based on the commission report, we hereby allow the complaint. The complainant is found entitled to get Rs. 1,57,978/-, the amount required for rectifying the defects along with a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for deficiency in service and a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,57,978/- along with Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order till realisation.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of August 2010.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 353/2009

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of contract.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

V COURT EXHIBIT:

C1 - Commission Report

PRESIDENT

jb