By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed against the Opposite Party to compensated the defective construction of the house.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant entrusted the Opposite Party for the construction of the house building on 10.11.2008 and the terms and conditions of the work that to be done was recorded in the Photostat Copy of the building plan and on that day the Opposite Party was given Rs.10,000/- as advance. The Opposite Party has to construct the house building according to the plan. The maisontry work including the fixing of doors and windows and the roof slab and other slabs are to be concreted. The construction of the building was to be according to the terms and conditions agreed. The Opposite Party received Rs.85,000/- as the amount fixed for the work. The supply of materials such as sand, cement bricks, door frames, window frames are to be supplied by the Complainant.

3. The roof slab was not fully concreted near about 2 Square meter area was not concreted. The Opposite party has not completed the work. The Opposite Party received from the Complainant the amount from time to time and it was endorsed by him in the account book. The house building construction by the Opposite Party was defective the roof was leaking in several places. In heavy rain due to the poor workmanship of the Opposite Party water drops in large quantity to the floor from the roof slab. On enquiry of the Complainant it is known that to recover the building from the leak an additional amount is to be spent. The Opposite Party has not properly worked, the construction was absolutely defective the materials supplied by the Complainant was not fully used.

4. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to refund Rs.85,000/- given by the Complainant. The leakage of the roof whether can be rectified, the amount required to be spent is to be met by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is also liable to pay Complainant Rs.10,000/- towards cost and compensation.

5. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- This Opposite Party had not received any amount as an advance towards the construction of the house building from the Complainant. Rs.85,000/- was given by the Complainant towards the labour charge. The Opposite Party is yet to be paid Rs.15,000/- as the labour charge. The roof slab of the house building was fully concreted. The allegation of the Complainant that near about 2 square meter area in the roof slab is not concreted is incorrect. The additional work done by the Opposite Party was not paid up. The complaint is born out from the demand of the Opposite Party the labour charge that is still due. The Complainant was entrusted the maisontry work fixing of doors and windows and other accessory work but it does not include the plastering of the wall.  After concreting of the roof was properly watered to make the concrete fully set. According to this opposite Party the roof slab is not having any leakage if any leakage from the side of the wall if met with it is not due to any poor workmanship of the Complainant. Plastering of wall parapet are done by somebody else. The poor workmanship of them would be a reason for leakage. The Opposite party was entrusted to do the brick works, concreting roof slab fixing doors windows the slab also include the construction of slope slab. The Opposite Party is expert in the field of construction for the last 30 years. Allegation is raised against this Opposite Party on personal motivation. The under taking of the work of house building construction of the Complainant was agreed by the Opposite Party upon continuous request of the Complainant. The entire work was supervised by an Engineer named Joly Jose who supervised the construction work as an expert in the field of construction. The workmanship of the Opposite Party is unchallenged. On completion of the structure this Opposite Party informed the Complainant that in sufficient places water cutting is to be made. According to this Opposite Party the Complainant has not inserted hose to remove water floating on the roof. The Opposite Party received only Rs.85,000/- towards the labour charge of Rs.15,000/- are due from the Complainant that include the additional work done by the Opposite Party beyond the terms and conditions made in between the Complainant and Opposite Party. The complaint is ill motivated to draw money from the Opposite Party and it is resulted by the request of the Opposite Party to give the labour charge amount still in due. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

6. Points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service in the construction of the house building?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Point No.1 and 2:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts.A1 to A3, B1, C1(a), C1(b) and C2 are the documents considered in this case. The oral testimony of the Complainant, Opposite Party and witness of Opposite Party are also considered.

8. It is admitted by the Complainant and Opposite Party that the construction of house building was done by the Opposite Party. Ext.A2 is the terms made in between the Complainant and Opposite Party for the construction of the house building. Rs.85,000/- was received by the Opposite Party on 10.11.2008 as an advance for the construction. The building is to be constructed according to the plan that is Ext.A1. There is no difference or any disputes in respect of the amount received by the Opposite Party for the construction charge which is Rs.85,000/-. The contention of the Opposite Party it that the construction of the building was erected by Opposite Party under supervision of on Engineer named Joly Jose. If any defect such as leakage of roof is evented the Opposite Party is not responsible. The Opposite Party has done only the structure work. The plastering and other subsequent works were not done by the Opposite Party. According to the Opposite Party the work was undertaken by him and for which as labour charge for the Rs.85,000/- was received. On the other hand the Opposite Party contended that the Complainant was not given him Rs.15,000/- as the charge in addition to the extra work done by the Opposite Party. No documents is produced to substantiate the contention of the Opposite Party that Rs.15,000/- are yet to be paid by the Complainant as the labour charge still in due.

9. The Expert Commissioner inspected the house building and the report submitted. The Commission Expert is also examined as CW1. Main slab and the slop slab of sunshade found to be leaking according to the Expert Commissioner. The Commissioner conducted thorough examination to find out extensity of leakage. The building construction was in tally with the plan Ext.A1. The inspection of the main slab to find out the leakage was carried out pouring water on the slab and even in rainy season. The building was inspected and the report was answering the work memo. The allegation of the Complainant that in the main slab a portion of 2 square meter were not concreted but in the personal evidence of Commissioner Expert it is denied. The Opposite Party is having experience of 32 years in building construction as stated in its oral testimony. It is deposed by PW1 that the material used for the construction was not of good quality. How ever responsibility of the construction was on the Opposite Party. The witness examined for Opposite Party as OPW2 is a co-worker of the Opposite Party. According to this witness the construction of the house building was taken by the Opposite Party as a coolie worker and there was no agreement made in between the Complainant and Opposite Party regarding the terms of construction. The testimony of this witness cannot relied on it is also admitted by this witness that if the materials supplied found to be not of standard quality it was substituted by the Complainant. From the document produced and personal evidence of the witness the main slab and the slop slab are having leakage in some places. The leakage is due to the substandard workmanship of the Opposite Party. Ext.C1(a) exemplifies the additional work which to be done to stop the leakage and the amount that to be spent for the leak proof work that is estimated Rs.27,000/-. We are in the opinion that the house building constructed by the Opposite Party is defective which is a reason for leakage. The Complainant is to be compensated with expense for making the roof slab leak proof and the expense estimated by the expert witness is to be paid to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to give Rs.27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven thousand only) to the Complainant along with compensation and cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only). This amount to be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st December 2010.

Date of filing: 08.06.2009

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Koya Abdul Majeed @ Majeed Koya Complainant.

CW1. Ismalutty. Rtd. Asst. Executive Engineer, PWD.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Jose. Mason.

OPW2. Johnson. Mason.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Plan.

A2. Terms made in between Complainant and Opposite Party. dt:10.11.2008.

A3. Copy of Receipt.

C1(a) Inspection Report. dt:12.10.2009.

C1(b). Additional Report.

C2. Inspection Report.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. Letter. dt:13.05.2010.