KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 814/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 07.11.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 327/2014of DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Mohanan, S/o Madhavan, Kuzhiyadiyil House, Kakkomb, Muttom P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv. Narayan R.)

RESPONDENT:

Khadeeja Ibrahim, Thellikunnel House, Muttom P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki-685 587.

(By Adv. K.M. Sanu and Adv. Asok Kumar J.S.)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 327/2014 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short “the District Commission”).

2.  The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service in connection with the construction of a building.  It was contended that the building was not constructed within the period stipulated in the agreement.  It was further contended that the appellant had collected an amount of Rs. 28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand only) more than what was originally agreed to by the parties.  The further contention of the respondent is that there was leaking.  The respondent had requested the appellant to complete the construction and rectify the defects in the construction.  However, that was not done.  On the said reason, it was alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

3.  The appellant had filed written version admitting that he had constructed the residential building of the respondent.  He further contended that the entire work was done by him properly.  All the materials were purchased by the respondent herself and the appellant had only done the work on daily wages and in the said circumstances, if at all there was any deterioration in the quality of the materials, the appellant was not responsible for that. 

4.  PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P6 were marked for the respondent/complainant.  DW1 and DW2 were examined for the appellant.  Exhibit C1 commission report of the expert commissioner was also marked.  The District Commission, after considering the relevant inputs, directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) towards the repairing charges and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and costs together. 

5.  Heard both sides and perused the records. 

6.  It appears from the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exhibit C1 commission report that there were some defects in the construction of the building by the appellant.  Even though it was alleged that an amount of Rs. 28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand only) was received by the appellant in excess of what was agreed to by the parties, no material has been produced before the Commission to prove the same.  However, Exhibit C1 report would show that the work was not done properly and hence there was leaking in many places.  The commissioner in Exhibit C1 report stated that the estimated cost for completing the construction and rectifying the defects of the building of the respondent was Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only). 

7.  We have gone through the evidence of DW1 and DW2.  DW1 had stated that he was doing the work on daily wages with the assistance of DW2.  It is stated in Exhibit P1 that any work over and above the estimated amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) had to be done on daily wages @ Rs. 475/- (Rupees Four Hundred and Seventy Five only) per day.  Even though DW1 had stated that the work was done in proper manner and there was no leaking, the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exhibit C1 would clearly establish that the work was not properly done and hence there was leaking. 

8.  Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are of the view that the District Commission was perfectly justified in finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in this regard.  The District Commission directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only), which is the estimated amount mentioned in Exhibit C1 for the repair work of the building.  The District Commission also directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards compensation and costs together.  The District Commission further directed that the above said total amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) carries interest @ 12% per annum from the date of default.

9.  Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest ordered by the District Commission is excessive.  Therefore, the interest ordered by the District Commission is liable to be reduced to 9% per annum.  The District Commission ordered Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) as costs and compensation together.  Therefore, Rs. 5,000/- is taken as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- is taken as costs.  We are of the view that the costs need not carry any interest.  Therefore, the respondent will be entitled to get interest for the amount of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) @ 9% per annum from the date of default till realization.  It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part confirming the order passed by the District Commission directing the appellant to pay  an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only), which is the estimated amount mentioned in Exhibit C1 for the repair work of the building.  We also confirm the compensation and costs ordered by the District Commission. However, the respondent will be entitled to get interest only for the amount of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) and that itself, at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till realization. To the above extent alone, the order impugned stands modified.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. 

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be given to the respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT                                                                 

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb