By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party on the defective construction of a house building.
2. The extension work of the Complainant's house was entrusted to the Opposite Party under the terms and conditions such that the materials required for the construction would be provided by the Complainant. The opposite party left abandoned some of the work already entrusted and the works which were done by the Opposite Party were also defective. The Opposite Party was not a contractor by profession and the house constructed by the Opposite Party is not fit for living. The work of terrace wall, drainage, electrification, toilet, plumbing, courtyard, bath room, kitchen and compound wall are not completed and the work which were done by the Opposite Party were also defective. As per the terms and conditions of the contract some of the work were yet to be done by the Opposite Party. The Complainant sent notice to the Opposite Party on the defective construction of the house which is a deficiency in service. The loss caused to the Complainant cannot be estimated in terms of money.
3. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to rectify the defects in the construction of the extention area of the house and pay Rs.1,49,486/- towards loss and damages caused along with Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and cost of Rs.1,000/-
4. Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The Opposite Party was engaged to construct the repair works of the house which already building up by somebody else. The Complainant has not paid the amount in due to this Opposite Party towards the construction of the building and a suit OS 85/11 is filed before Munsiff Court , Sulthan Bathery. The allegation of the Complainant that the construction work of this Opposite Party is defective is absolutely false. This Opposite Party constructed building in different places and having license as an contractor in the construction of a building. The Complainant provided materials which were not good quality. The allegation of the Complainant that the house building constructed by this Opposite Party is unfit for living is also nothing but false. The Ammithara, Thulasithara were not build up according to the Complainant but it is false.
5. After receiving notice this Opposite Party did these works and completed it. The claim of the Complainant that he is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,49,486/- is not based on any calculation. This Opposite Party constructed around 100 houses and other building for the last 25 years in the different places in Wayanad District as a contractor this Opposite Party is having his own reputation in the field. The work was entrusted to this Opposite Party by this Complainant only because of the good name in the contract work. Before entering in to the extented work of the Opposite Party an agreement was executed on 03.08.2010. The nature of the work and the conditions are exemplified in the agreement and the work to be completed based on the terms and conditions of the agreement. The total cost for the materials and labour charges is fixed Rs.3,17,000/-. On the date of agreement this Opposite Party received Rs.2,00,000/- and the nature of payment of the balance amount is also avered in the agreement. The Complainant already agreed to pay the amount before 16.8.2010 after completing the entire works. The agreement was executed after constructing the compound wall and two bath rooms. The materials those were left after completion of work were used for remaining construction work.
6. The Complainant was not keeping his words and terms and conditions of the agreement. In many occasions this Opposite Party had to give the labour charges to the workers when found that the building was closed and Complainant left the place. The non co-operation of the Complainant is the reason for incompletion of Aluva Owen, exhaust fan in bath room, staircase fixing, metal sheet behind doors of bath room, fitting of switches and bulb holders. The responsibilities of the same cannot be cast upon this Opposite Party for the construction of staircase this Opposite Party entrusted the work to the Deepa Industrial for an amount of Rs.13,000/- and Rs.10,000/- was given in advance. The intentional omission and negative attitude of the Complainant made this Opposite Party not to complete the work.
7. This Opposite Party in several occasions tried to complete the work as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the Complainant hindered this act. The mediation talk of the reputed person were also tried but not having any effect. This Opposite Party left materials worth of Rs.10,000/- and work equipment to the value of Rs.14,000/- left in the premises of the Complainant. The Complainant was not ready to make this Opposite Party to continue the work. The Complainant has to pay Rs.80,000/- on completion of the work and this Opposite Party sent lawyer notice to the Complainant dated 11.10.2011 for the releasing of the equipment huddled in the premises of the Complainant and for completion of the remaining work. Whereas the Complainant sent reply of untenable reason. This Opposite Party is to be given Rs.65,200/- and towards value of the masontry equipment Rs.14,000/- and the cost of materials that are left in the premises of the Complainant Rs.10,000/- along with cost and compensation in total it comes Rs.94,200/-. This Opposite Party is to be given by the Complainant Rs.94,200/- along with interest at the rate of 12% and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
8. Points that are to be decided:-
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. Relief and cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant Ext.A1 to A8 and C1 are the documents. Oral testimony of the complainant and expert commissioner are brought out in this case.
7. The dispute in issue is in respect of the defective and incomplete construction work alleged to be done by the Opposite Party. Ext.A1 is the agreement executed between the Complainant and Opposite Party to carry out the additional construction work entrusted to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party received Rs.2,00,000/- on the date of executing the agreement and has avered in the agreement Rs.30,000/- to be paid to the Opposite Party on the following day after executing the agreement. The different works which are to be carried out by the Opposite Party are mentioned in the agreement. The Opposite Party's case is that the complaint is filed without any reason and basis. Rs.94,200/- is the amount due from the Complainant including the value of the maisontry equipments cost of materials and labour charges. The Opposite Party also admitted that some of the works as mentioned in Ext.A1 are not completed and the reason for which is that the Complainant did not permit them to take over the work. Ext.A5 is the receipt produced which shows that Rs.80,000/- was spent by the Complainant for the completion of certain works that are to be done by the Opposite Party as per the terms and conditions. On perusal of the documents produced it is seen that the opposite party left the construction work entrusted abandoned for which the Complainant has to spent further amount.
8. As per the terms of the agreement Rs.80,000/- is to be given to the Opposite Party after completion of the entire works, whereas this Opposite Party has not completed the work. Ext.C1 is the report of the expert commissioner which details the nature of the works and probable cost of rectification and report of the works that were done by the Opposite Party. The rectification proposed by the expert commissioner and the probable cost of rectification amount to Rs.84,000/-. The commissioner is examined as OPW1. According to him the concrete works in the house found to be in a broken position and the mixing of the materials were not subjected for analysis. The build up wall in some places are cracked. The concrete ceiling is also leaking if it is to be prevented additional roofing works is to be done over it. The construction of the wall and roof slab according to the expert commissioner is not free from defect. The work does not exhibit good workmanship as disposed by the expert commissioner.
9. From the inferences above it is to be considered that the extension work entrusted to the Opposite Party is not done properly and free from defects. The defective construction of the building including compound wall is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and it is to be compensated. According to the expert commissioner Rs.84,000/- is the amount necessary for rectification works.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay the Complainant Rs.84,000/- (Rupees Eighty Four thousand only) towards the defective construction and cost of work abandoned by the Opposite Party and towards hardships and losses Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) also to be paid to the Complainant including cost by the Opposite Party. This is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30th May 2012.
Date of filing:03.06.2012.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/ Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Suresh Babu. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Anilkumar Overseer, Pulpally Grama Panchayath.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Agreement. dt:03.08.2010.
A2. Copy of Attendance Register for the month of August 2010.
A3. Receipt. dt:25.03.2010.
A4. Receipt.
A5. Receipt. dt:21.11.2010.
A6. Copy of Work Details.
A7. Copy of Commission Report. dt:25.5.2011.
A8. Copy of Judgment. dt:15.11.2011.
C1. Copy of Report submitted by Expert Commissioner.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
