DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30th day of July 2009.

 Present : Smt. H. Seena, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member)

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member)

C.C.No.93/2007

M. Sobhana

D/o. Late Govindan Kutty Nair

S.N.K. Vihar

Palappuram

Ottappalam

Palakkad.

(Adv.K.Dhananjayan) - Complainant

V/s

C.P. Mohanan

S/o. Narayanan Ezhuthachan

Chamathaparambil House

Palappuram

Ottappalam

Palakkad. - Opposite Party

(Adv. P. Sreeprakash)

O R D E R

By Smt. H. Seena, President

Facts leading to the filing of the complaint is as under:

Complainant executed an agreement dated 17/02/2006 with the Opposite party for construction of a house for herself. The agreed rate was Rs.450/- per square feet. It was also agreed that only standard quality materials shall be used for construction and the key shall be handed over after after full construction within a period of 6 months from the date of agreement. Key was handed over to the complainant in the month of January 2007 without completing the whole work. Complainant started residing in the house in the month of January itself. The grievance of the complainant is that within 6 months itself, it began to leak profusely on all rooms . All the windows, its frames and doors began to decay. All the electrical fittings were not done properly. The entire walls of the house became wet and water oozes out from it. Even though informed Opposite party has not taken any steps for rectification. Hence the complainant claims an amount of 2 lakhs for repairing work and

- 2 -

compensation.

Opposite party filed version with the following contentions.

Opposite party admits the contract executed between the complainant and opposite party, but denies the say of the complainant that it was not completed within the stipulated time. According to opposite party, the main grievance of the complainant is regarding the leakage on the wall is due to the subsequent construction of the stair case. Stair case construction was an additional work done by the Opposite party. It was done after the construction of the wall. Chipping work has to be done for the said construction. Complainant was informed about the risk of leakage. She was ready to accept the risk. Further there was no specific agreement for leveling and plastering of the terrace. Specific direction was given to the complainant to level and plaster the terrace so as to avoid leakage in future. To the information of opposite party, this has been done by the complainant at a belated stage and that was the reason for wetting. According to Opposite party, none of the complaints noted by the Commissioner is due to the defect in the construction. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties.

Complainant and Opposite party filed their respective affidavits. Exhibit A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant. After inspection, Commissioner has filed report and is marked as Exhibit C1.

Now the issues for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service of the party of opposite party?

2. If so, what is the relief and costs?

Point No.1

The main grievance of the complainant is regarding the leakage in the house. Further the woods used for construction of windows, its frame and doors were not of good quality. Electricity fittings were also not done properly. Opposite party contended that leakage was due to the subsequent construction of staircase, the risk of which was duly informed to the

- 3 -

complainant. Further the non leveling and non plastering of the terrace has also added to

the problem of leaking. Exhibit A1 reveals the fact that there was an agreement executed between the parties. Exhibit A2 series photographs evidences the pathetic condition of the newly constructed house. Commissioner has clearly noted and reported regarding the leakage in the walls, upward leak in store rooms, in correctness in the slope of the roof etc. Commission report is marked as Exhibit C1. Going through the available evidence on records, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The contention of the opposite party that the construction of staircase is the reason for leakage is not supported by any evidence. Further opposite party has not filed any work memo at the time of inspection by the Commissioner nor any objection to Commission report filed. Further say of the opposite party that leveling and plastering of the terrace was done by the complainant at a later stage is also not supported by any evidence. Complainant was not cross examined. Hence we answer the point in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2

As deficiency in service on the part of opposite party is established, the next question is regarding the compensation and the amount required for rectification of the defects. Complainant herein has claimed an amount of Rs.2 lakh. Forum experiences practical difficulties in arriving at a conclusion regarding the amount of repair charges. As per Exhibit C1, Commissioner has not stated the total amount required for the rectification of the defects. Complainant has not taken any steps for examination of the commissioner to make clear this aspect. The total area of the house was not mentioned any where in the complaint or any other documents produced before the forum. Hence we are not in a position to calculate the repair charges. Having established deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party, complainant is entitled for some amount as compensation. We are of the view that an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation will meet the ends of justice.

In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate

- 4 -

of 9% per annum.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of July 2009.

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 – Original agreement dated 17^th Feb 2006 between the Complainant and Opposite party.

2. Ext. A2 series - Photos (18 Nos) of the house

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

Nil

Forums Exhibit

1. Exhibit C1 – Commission report dated 06.09.2007 of Er. Sujatha Vijayan

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent