.
SMT. G. VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s case is that the first opp.party is engaged in the business of constructing residential building and other commercial buildings for consideration, and the 2nd opp.party is engaged in the construction of roof concrete work and other allied works under the 1st opp.party at his supervision and directions, that the complainant had availed the services of the opp.parties for consideration and hence he is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, that during September 2006 the opp.parties approached the complainant and informed him that they undertakes building construction works and impressed upon that the complainant entered into an agreement with them, on the understanding that the complainant will provide construction materials for his building and the opp.parties will do the construction work, that the construction of the new house started during the month of September 2006, but the work done by the opp.parties progressed in a slow pace, that the opp.parties always pressed the complainant to give more and more money when they required for the work, that the opp.parties completed the work up to the stage of roof concrete, that the construction work done by the first opp.party was more or less satisfactory and the date of roof concrete was fixed on 22.1.2007, that prior to the roof concrete the 2nd opp.party at the direction and supervision of the 1st opp.party started to construct the plat form for roof concrete,, that though the complainant had made relevant suggestions about the quality of work the opp.parties have not considered such suggestions and opinions, that the 2nd opp.party used low quality and old wooden planks and poles for construction of platform, that even though the complainant requested the opp.parties to use quality wood for the same they did not considered the suggestions of the complainant, that any way the plat form work was completed and the day for roof concrete was fixed on 22.1.2007, that the complainant spent about Rs. 5,000/- and arranged food for the workers since it is a customary practice, but surprisingly neither the opp.parties nor their workers turned up on 22.1.2007and the complainant had to run from pillar to post to trace out the opp.parties. At about 1 pm the complainant contacted the 2nd opp.party and he stated lame excuses and agreed to do the concrete work on 23..1..2007, that this irresponsible conduct of the opp.parties caused mental agony to the complainant and he had to suffer a loss to the tune of Rs.5000/-, that on the next day the roof concrete work was completed by the opp.parties, that the total extent of roof is 1200 square feet and agreed rate for roof concrete is Rs.20/- per square feet, that even though the opp.parties are entitled to Rs.24,000/- for the construction of roof, they received Rs.27,000/- on several occasions, that when enquired about the same the opp.parties agreed to adjust the excess amount in future work, that to the surprise of the complainant on the very next day of the concrete itself the complainant noticed two big cracks on the roof concrete, that the complainant immediately contracted the opp.parties and informed this matter to the opp.parties, that both the opp.parties personally inspected the site after repeated requests made by the complainant and they agreed to rectify the same, that the complainant waited for another two weeks but the opp.parties did not turn up, that now the water is leaking through the roof concrete and the same is dangerous for the entire roof as well as the building, that the complainant sought the assistance of a civil engineer to know the root cause of the defective construction, that the engineer inspected the site and informed that the main reason is the low quality of wood used for the plat form construction and the same might have got displaced or dislodged due to the heavy load of concrete, that the unfortunate situation might have been avoided if the opp.parties have applied due care and attention while the plat form was constructed, that it is quite clear that the low quality wood used was not able to withstand the weight of cement and other construction materials and more over the roof concrete is not having the same thickness over entire area and there is a difference of more than two inches in several spaces over the roof, that these amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties, that even though the opp.parties agreed to rectify the complaint, even after a laps of two months they never turned up and now the monsoon season is to commence during the month of June and the construction is kept idle and it is highly dangerous for the entire building, that the complainant spent Rs.1,20,000/- for the construction of roof concrete which includes the value of materials purchased for the construction of roof concrete, that the opp.parties are legally bound to repay the said amount together with interest. Since gross deficiency in service had occurred on the part of the opp.parties during the work of roof concrete, the complainant further has to spent another 1.5 lakhs to rectify the defective construction work done by the opp.parties and it is to be recovered from the opp.parties, that the complainant is also entitled to get Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony he had undergone from the opp.parties and Rs.5,000/- towards costs
1st opp.party filed version contending that he is not engaged in any business that he is a labourer doing manual work on daily wages, that the first opp.party carried out manual work for the complainant in accordance with the direction of his supervisor and for this reason the complainant is not a consumer, that in fact the 1st opp.party was mainly doing head load works such as carrying mixture of cement and sand, bricks etc in obedience of the instruction given by the complainant as well as his supervisor, Engineer Ramachandran Pillai, that the 1st opp.party never approached the complainant or undertaken any construction work and if there had been any agreement it should have been in black and white and the absence of which belies the complainant’s case, that the 1st opp.party has not attended the party alleged to have been arranged by the complainant mainly because of his ill-treatment while working for him, that the first opp.party is not in a position to make any opinion about the work of the 2nd opp.party, that the roof concrete work was done on the direct instructions of the complainant and his supervisor, that the complainant has no cause of action against the 1st opp.party and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost of the first opp.party.
The 2nd opp.party filed separate version contending that the case is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the 2nd opp.party did not compel the complainant for the payment of more amount from the complainant, that the orally agreed rate for the roof concrete was Rs.12 /-per square feet subject to the thickness of the concrete, that the 2nd opp.party had constructed the platform for the roof concrete not under the supervision of the 1st opp.party but, the roof platform was constructed as per the strict direction and supervision of the complainant and the engineer, that the platform work were completed on 21.1.2007 and roof concreting fixed on 23.1.2007 and one day ie. 22.1.2007 required by the complainant for electrical wiring purpose and for fixing the hooks and the contrary allegation is denied, that the 2nd opp.party had received only Rs.13,000/- for the part payment of the concrete construction, that the complainant and his supervisor engineer were present at the time of concreting, that the water cement ratio also supervised by the complainant, supervisor and engineer, that there is no deficiency in service, that the 2nd opp.party is not legally bound to repay the amount received by him, that the 2nd opp.party is entitled to get the balance amount with respect to the work carried out by the 2nd opp.party to the complainant and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from him, that the 2nd opp.party on 23..1..2007 demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for meeting the labour cost, but the complainant did not care his demand and returned the 2nd opp.party, with a promise that, the complainant shall arrange the payment on the next day, that on the next day only paid Rs.5,000/- and thereby some wordy altercations took place between them against which the 2nd opp.party approached the police authority, but the complainant did not turn up and filed this complaint to prevent the payment of the balance amount and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost of the 2nd opp.party.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties?
2. Reliefs and costs.
For the complainant PW.1 was examined.
For the opp.parties DWs.1 to 4 were examined.
POINT:1
The specific case of the complainant is that he entered into an oral agreement with the opp.parties and as per the agreement he entrusted the construction work of his building with the opp.parties on the understanding that the complainant has to provide with the construction materials and the construction work will be done by the opp.parties. It is further alleged that the construction work up to the roof concrete was more or less satisfactory and there is irregularity in the roof concrete. According to him the 2nd opp.party used low quality of old wooden planks and poles for construction of platform without considering his suggestions. The date for roof concrete was fixed on 22..1..2007 and even though they have not turned up on that day and it was done on the next day because of that he has to suffer a loss of Rs.5,000/- which he has spent for arranging food for the workers. Further his case is that even though the opp.parties are entitled to Rs.24,000/- for the construction of roof, they received Rs.27,000/- on several occasions. On the very next day of the concrete itself the complainant noticed two big cracks on the roof concrete and even though he has contacted the opp.parties they have not turned up for about 2 months and he has spent about Rs. 1,20,000/- for the construction of the roof concrete and the opp.parties are legally bound to repay the same . In view of the defective construction he is entitled to costs and compensation. But according to the first opp.party he is only a manual labourer doing head load works such as carrying mixture of cement, sand and bricks etc in obedience to the instructions given by the complainant as well as his supervisor Engineer Ramachandrapillai. According to the 2nd opp.party there is no oral agreement between the complainant and the opp.parties as alleged by the complainant.. The rate for the roof concrete was Rs.12/- per square feet subject to thickness of the concrete. He constructed the platform under the supervision of an engineer arranged by the complainant and the roof platform was constructed as per the strict direction and supervision of the complainant and engineer and not used old and low quality of the wooden planks and poles as alleged. The platform work was completed on 21.1.2007 and roof concreting was fixed on 23..1..2007 and 22.1.2007 the complainant required for electrical wiring purpose for fixing hooks and all other allegations are denied and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
Even though the case of the complainant is that he entered into an oral agreement with the opp.parties and entrusted the construction work of his building with the opp.parties, apart from his interested testimony as PW.1. there is no other substantiating evidence. Any way up to the platform work he is satisfactory. He has no allegation against the first opp.party. The dispute starts from the stage of construction of platform and roof concrete. According to the opp.parties the whole work was done under the supervision of DW.3 Engineer Ramachandra Pillai. He would swear before the Forum that ilpjuksm iJmjrk\ crack KxxflujtSr\rlmk\ eyB\Bjh\h; He denied the case of the opp.parties that the building construction was done under his supervision. But DW.4 Remesan would swear before the Forum that plan rkA supervision rkA DW.3 Llujgkr\rk Bb\bX fa\ajHakRek\ egjvuA Kn\mk DW.3ukaluj supervision H BlrkA mj iJ}jH Kn\mlujgkr\rk; Opp.party 1 ilpjuksm iJ}jsh ssa]lmk\ enjukA Opp.party 2 contract work rmf\fjujgkr\rk; Roof supervision rlnk\ rmf\fjufk\; DW.3 uksm rjGSp\SpC Yedlgalnk concrete rmf\fjufk\; So it is in evidence that the concrete work was done under the supervision of DW.3. DW.4 would further swear before the forum that concrete roof eoCj plaster svu\ffk Bb\bxlnk\ roof crack Qr\rkA tsRy YCp\PujH se\e}jh\h
In this case even though an expert was appointed and report was filed before this Forum and opp.parties filed objection, the expert was not examined before the Forum and the report was not seen marked. In that it is stated that “I found leak in the roof slab at five places. This is due to lack of slab thickness. There is a lack of expert supervision. The slab thickness for the hall [4.33mx4.53m] should have at least 12 cm. I found only 10 cm thick at the mid-span and 8 cm at the end. The shuttering material used is of acceptable. By visual inspection the under surface of the slab is plane.
The leak is not due to shuttering materials used.. The raw materials used for the concrete is supplied by owner himself The steel used is. Tor steel. The cement used is Chettynad, Sand used is from Enath and the 20 mm metal is from Plakkadu Granite Konni. The raw materials used are of good quality. The spacing of the bars is main rod. T8mm @ 10cm. and distributor T8mm @ 12 cm., which is sufficient for this span. The cracks in the roof are due to excess water in the concrete mix. If there was a strict supervision, the water-cement ratio could have been maintained. There is a lack of supervision of experts [This should be arranged by the owner of the building].” It follows that the alleged leak caused to the building was not due to the use of law quality and old wooden planks and poles for the construction of platform but due to lack of expert supervision. In view of our above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Point found accordingly.
In the result, the consumer case is dismissed, In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to cost.
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2012.
:
I n d e x
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. – Vijayan Kurup
List of documents for the complainant: NIL
List of witnesses for the opp.parties
DW.1. – Manikantan
DW.2. – Raveendran Pillai
DW.3. – Ramachandran Pillai
DW.4. - Ramesan
