IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of October, 2017
Filed on 22.12.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.366/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Gopinatha Pillai 1. Sri. Jayakumar.
Thiruvonam Jamuna Nivas
Amayida. Amayida, Ambalappuzha
Ambalappuzha Alappuzha
Alappuzha (Adv.S.Ramakrishnan)
(Adv. Chandrasekharan Nair)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant while he was working at abroad contacted the opposite party for completing the construction of his house. Accordingly the opposite party prepared an estimate in favour of the wife of the complainant at the rate of Rs. 390 per sq.ft. There after some other works were also done by the opposite party. After completing the construction the opposite party has given the bill at the rate of Rs. 640 per sq.ft. and he received excess amount from the complainant. The work done by the opposite party was defective. Complainant had informed it to the opposite party, but so far he did not rectify the defects. Opposite party has taken the building materials of the complainant worth Rs.80,000/- without the consent of complainant. Opposite party has not carried out electric works properly and that caused much loss to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-
On the basis of the terms and conditions entered between the wife of the complainant and the opposite party an estimate was prepared at the rate of Rs. 390 per sq.ft. As the opposite party started the work and while the same was half way through, the complainant again contacted the opposite party and informed him that there are some more work to be done other than the above estimated work and that the opposite
party should complete the work on the basis of the suggestions put forward by his wife, who is looking after the construction of the said building. So plastering works of 3 bathrooms (Rs.170/- with material). Tile labour work, cement M.Sand and labour(without tile Rs. 80/-) electric work only labour (Rs.50 only) was also added to the earlier work. Thus on the said basis of a renewed estimate for an amount of Rs. 640/- sq.ft. was arrived between them. The opposite party completed the work with full sincerity and as per the terms and conditions entered between them. The work entrusted to the opposite party of the said building was constructed as per the direction and intensions of the complainant abiding the terms and conditions entered between them. The opposite party has carried out the electric work effectively as per the term and conditions without any default or delay and after finding that the electrical work was completed as per the standards and quality prescribed, the sanctioning authorities have given electrical connection to the said building. After the completion of the work when opposite party demanded the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- due to him, from the complainant , he requested for some more time to make the balance payment because of his daughter’s marriage and afterwards when the opposite party went to the complainant for getting the balance amount he made lame excuses and demanded further time for balance payment. Later when the opposite party approached the complainant for getting his balance payment complainant said that there are some defects in his electrical work so the payment can’t be made. The averment in the complaint that the opposite party has not completed the electrical work and thus he has sustained a loss of Rs.50,000/- etc is only an excuse to escape from the liability of Rs. 75,000/- which the complainant is bound in law to pay to the opposite party.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1 documents produced marked as Ext.A1 series to Ext.A4. The expert commissioner was examined as CW1 and expert commission report marked as Ext.C1,C2, C2(a). Opposite party was examined as RW1.
4. Points for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that opposite party entered into an agreement for carrying out the construction work of the house of the complainant at the rate of Rs.360/sq.ft. The complainants case is that original estimate given by the opposite party infavour of his wife was at Rs. 390/sq.ft., but in the final bill of amount revised was at the rate of Rs.640/sq.ft. and hence excess amount was levied by the opposite party. But complainant himself produced a contract agreement executed on 17/10/2014 between his wife and opposite party which marked as Ext.A1(a). As per Ext.A1(a) the amount fixed for per sq.ft. is RS.640. More over while cross examining PW1 he admitted that the 1st agreement was modified as Rs.640/sq.ft. and accordingly opposite party has agreed to construct 1273 sq.ft. Hence complainant failed to prove the allegation in his complaint that the rate of Rs.650/sq.ft. is much higher than the standard of work actually done. Hence the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from the opposite party on that ground.
6. During the trail stage at instance of complainant two expert commissioners were appointed to inspect the building constructed and the electrical work done by the opposite party. Commission applications were not opposed by the opposite party. Hence those applications were allowed and experts executed the work and produced the report which marked as Ext.C1 and C2 series. Ext.C1 is the commission report filed by Smt. Ushakumari who inspected the construction. It is pertinent to note that complainant has not made any allegation in the original complaint regarding the defect of the building constructed by the opposite party. In the complaint he complained only about the defects in the electrical work done by the opposite party. Since there was no pleading regarding the defects of the construction done by the opposite party we are not going to discuss about that issue.
7.. Regarding the electrical work done by the opposite party the expert commissioner in Ext.C2 report stated that there are some defects in the electric work carried out by the opposite party. In the report he stated that in order to rectify the defects in the wiring connection amount of Rs.4000/- is to be incurred by the complainant. From the above discussion we are of opinion that opposite party is bound rectify the defects in the wiring connection which noted by expert commissioner.
In the result complaint is partly allowed, opposite party is directed to rectify the defects in the wiring connection of the disputed building to the satisfaction of the complainant at free of cost. Failing which opposite party is directed to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) with 8% interest from the date of complaint till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 2000/-(Ruppes Two thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2017. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Gopinathapillai(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Contract Agreement
Ext.A1(a) - Contract Agreement
Ext.A1(b) - Plan
Ext.A1© - Contract Agreement
Ext.A2 - Invitation Letter
Ext.A3 - KSEB Bill dtd.11-09-15
Ext.A4 - KSEB Bill dtd. 12-11-15
CW1 - Ushakumari.S (Court Witness)
CW2 - Raju.G(Court witness)
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Ext.C2 - Commission report
Ext.C2(a) - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Jayasankar.M (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
