KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Common Order in Appeal Nos.523/09 and 244/10

JUDGMENT DATED: 6.12.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR               : MEMBER

APPEAL 523/09

M.Sobhana,                                                 :APPELLANT

D/o late Govindankutty Nair,

S.N.K.Vihar, Palappuram Post,

Palakkad District.

(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)

        Vs.

C.P.Mohanan,                                              : RESPONDENT

S/o Narayanan Ezhuthachan,

Chavathaparambil House,

Palappuram Post, Ottapalam,

Palakkad District.

(By Adv.Karakulam P.G.Manoj)

APPEAL 244/2010

C.P.Mohanan,                                              : APPELLANT

S/o Narayanan Ezhuthachan,

Chavathaparambil House,

Palappuram Post, Ottapalam,

Palakkad District.

(By M/s Sivsankar Associates)

                 VS.

M.Sobhana,                                                 :RESPONDENT

D/o late Govindankutty Nair,

S.N.K.Vihar, Palappuram Post,

Palakkad District.

(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

          The appellant in Appeal 523/09 is the complainant in CC.93/07 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad and appellant in A.244/10 is the opposite party.  The opposite party has been ordered to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum.

          2. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party constructed the residential house as per the agreement date 17..2..2006 at the rate of Rs.450 per sq.ft.  The construction was completed within the agreed period.  It is alleged that the construction was defective in all respects with in 6 months itself and there is water leakage in all the rooms.  All the windows, its frames and doors started to decay.  The entire walls became wet and water oozes out from it.  The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for  repairing work and compensation.

          3. In the version the opposite party have contended by the  leakage of the wall was due to the subsequent construction of the stair  case as an additional work.  It was done after the construction of the wall.  Chipping work has to be done and the complainant was informed about the risk of leakage.  There was no agreement for leveling and plastering of the terrace.  This was done by the complainant at a belated stage.  According to him  it was the construction of the staircase, leveling  and plastering of the terrace subsequently that caused the leakage.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits filed by the respective sides; Exts. A1  and A2 series and Ext.C1.

          5.We find that Ext. C1 report of the Commissioner supports the case setup by the complainant and with respect to the defects pointed out in the work memo by the complainant.  There are 15 defects noted in the work memo.  The complainant has answered mentioning that on all the points the defects pointed out existed except with respect to the alleged dripping in the store room.  It was only because the Commissioner did not assess the amount required for rectification that the Forum confined it to Rs.50000/- only to the complainant.  An objection to the report of the Commissioner was filed by the complainant but the complainant did not take any steps to examine the commissioner. No objection to the commission report has been filed by the opposite party. There is nothing to show that the complainant pressed for getting the commission report remitted.  In the circumstances we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called   for.  Bothe the appeals are dismissed.

          Office will forward the LCR along with the copy of these orders to the Forum urgently.

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

          SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR               : MEMBER

ps