CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 1st day of October 2014
CC.NO.109/2013
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 22/06/2013
: SMT. SHINY.P.R ,MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA K.P, MEMBER
Mohammed Ansari,
S/o.Mohammed Haneefa, H.No.10/331,
Paramount Garden, Pirayiri Post,
Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad District.
Represented by his Power of Attorney holder
Nishad, S/o.Subair, Residing at 10/331, : Complainant
Paramount Garden, Pirayiri Post,
Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad District.
(By Adv. John John)
Vs
1. M/s.Sreehari Architectural
Designers & Builders,
H.No.1/616, Ambedkar Colony,
Kallekkad P.O,
Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad District.
Represented by its Managing Partner Anoop,
S/o.R.Manikandan, 45/291, Mepparamba,
Pallippuram P.O, Shoranur Road,
Palakkad District – 678 006
2. Anoop, S/o.R.Manikandan,
Managing Partner,
M/s.Sreehari Architectural Designers & Builders,
45/291, Mepparamba, Pallippuram P.O, : Opposite parties
Shoranur Road, Palakkad District – 678 006
3. Sudheeshkumar, S/o.Kunju,
Partner,
M/s.Sreehari Architectural Designers & Builders,
45/291, Mepparamba, Pallippuram P.O,
Shoranur Road, Palakkad District – 678 006
(By Adv.M.R.Manikandan)
O R D E R
By Smt. Shiny . P. R. Member.
Brief facts of the case: - The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite parties on 15-6-2012 whereby the opposite parties undertook to construct a residential house with the plinth area of 1783 sq.ft. for the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.20,91,000/- as per the specifications set out in the said agreement. On the basis of the above said agreement, opposite parties started the construction work and as the work progressed, the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.11 lakhs to the opposite parties on various installments. At present several defects patent as well as latent have come to the notice of the complainant. The defects noticed by the complainant are frames of the doors and windows are of poor quality and measurement of the doors as provided are only 6.8 x 2.10 feet instead of 7x3 feet, cracks have been developed at many places especially all over the wooden articles such as door frames, window frames etc. due to poor workmanship and low quality of wood, the cement mortar is not getting set and the bricks have started getting detached due to the poor workmanship and low quality cement, cement is not properly filled in between the bricks and proportion of cement used in cement mortar is much deficient in quantity. The opposite parties are deviated from the terms and conditions of the agreement and also made unnecessary delay in the construction work. The complainant with the help of the expert made an assessment of the amount spent by the opposite parties for work so far completed and the complainant was shocked to learn that an amount of Rs.10,25,000/- alone is required for the work done by the opposite parties for which an amount of Rs.11 lakhs was given to the opposite parties by the complainant as per the demand of the opposite parties. The above said short comings in the work done by the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Due to their deficiency in service, the complainant was constrained to stop the work and it has caused both mental pain and financial loss to the complainant. The reputation of the complainant was also affected badly in the locality as the construction work was stopped half way. On 21-3-2013 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite parties calling upon them to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh towards mental pain and damage caused to his reputation and to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- received by the opposite parties over and above the amount of Rs.10,25,000/- spent by the opposite parties for the construction work. On 11-4-2013 the opposite parties replied for the same stating false and baseless contentions. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for a direction to pay a total amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to the complainant with 12% interest per annum till its realization. Interim application filed by the complainant seeking permission for the completion of house construction which is stopped half way. After hearing both parties application allowed.
Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties and they entered appearance and filed their version.
Opposite parties admitted the agreement and payment made by the complainant. Opposite parties submitted as follows:- After the approval of the building plan the work was started by the opposite parties and as the work was progressed the complainant asked the opposite parties to do some more additional works deviated from the approved plan and as demanded and required by the complainant an additional area of 247 sq.ft. has to be constructed more for Rs.1,150/- per sq. ft. which comes to a total amount of Rs.2,84,000/-. In addition to that the complainant demanded to extend 50 sq.ft. more to the bed room at the first floor, extend the home theatre room and also to construct additional staircase and stair room opening to the second floor of the building. Then the opposite parties undertook to do the additional work and complainant agreed to pay the additional expenses incurred for the same, i.e., Rs.2,84,000/- for the additional area of 247 sq.ft, Rs.80,000/- for the home theatre extension room at the first floor and Rs.10,000/- for folding stair totaling to an amount of Rs.3,74,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.20,91,000/-. Opposite party further submitted that as per the approved plan to sit out of the building was of round shape one and after completing the entire structure the complainant changed his mind and compelled the opposite parties to demolish the same and converted the sit out in to rectangle shape. On 22-1-2013 opposite parties submitted a work completed bill to the complainant since they burdened with an additional amount of Rs.2,86,000/- which was spent by the opposite party out of their own pocket against the complainant’s payment of Rs.11,00,000/-. On the receipt of the bill the complainant promised to pay the amount within few days. Since the opposite parties were not in a position to continue with work without getting the amount from the complainant they stopped the work by the end of January 2013. The opposite parties had used high quality and standard Malabar cements for the entire works and mixture of the same was adopted as per the accepted standard and quality prevailing in the construction field. The electrification work, floor concrete work, pest control work and carpentry work were also completed and the building work of the complainant was nearing completion. That the doors and windows of the building are done by the opposite parties as per specification made in the agreement. The opposite parties have filed a suit for the Hon’ble Munsiff Court, Palakkad as O.S.269/2013 and same is pending. Opposite parties are not deviated from the terms and conditions of the agreement. They constructed the building as per the directions of the complainant. The intention of the complainant to defraud and defeat opposite parties and also to escape from the liability of paying the amount to opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Expert Commissioner was appointed to inspect the property and Commissioner filed report. Both parties field their work memos. The Commissioner submitted in his report that the structure work of the both floors is completed. No major structural damages are noted. The mortar joints of brick masonry are not perfect in some areas. It may be due to lack of curing. In one portion there is a little bulging of RCC. This may be due to the frame work movement. It can be rectified by chipping it out. Some cracks are visible in the window frame fitted. Normally such cracks are common in country wood. The nature of work seems to satisfy standards for ordinary building construction. In the opinion of the commissioner the amount spent so far is approximately Rs.11,10,000/-. The total plinth area of the building as measured during inspection is 1818 sq.ft. At present approximately 9.8 lakhs more may be required for completing the building. Complainant filed objection to commission report stating that the commissioner has not properly ascertained the standards of the work done by the opposite parties. Commissioner went wrong in calculating the amount already spent by the opposite parties. Further commissioner omitted to specify the demerits of not providing the belt beam at sit out and number of reinforcement bars.
Both parties filed their chief affidavit. Ext. A1 to A6 marked from the side of complainant. Ext. B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite parties. Commission report marked as Ext C1. No oral evidence is adduced by the complainant. 1st Opposite party is examined as DW1.
The following issues are considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
Both parties heard. We have perused the documents on record. The opposite parties admitted the agreement and receipt of Rs.11,00,000/-. Complainant submitted that the cracks have developed at many places especially all over the wooden articles such as door frames, window frames etc. due to poor workmanship and low quality of wood. The commissioner is submitted in his report that the normally such cracks are common in country wood. As per the commissioner report only three doors, one 3 shutter windows and two 2 shutter windows seen at site at the time of inspection. Teak wood articles are not seen at site. The commissioner is submitted in his report that the nature of work seems to satisfy standards for ordinary building construction and no major damages are noted. Moreover the commissioner submitted that the approximately Rs.11,10,000/- is already expended. The complainant has no allegation against the construction of sit out in rectangle shape instead of round shape in the complaint. Opposite parties submitted that as per the approved plan the sit out of the building was of round shape one and after completing the entire structure the complainant changed his mind and compelled the opposite parties to demolish the same and converted the sit out into the rectangle shape. Opposite parties submitted that all the additional constructions are done on the request of the complainant. At the time of the additional construction complainant has not obstructed the opposite parties. Complainant did not produce any document to show that an amount of Rs 10,25,000/- alone is required for the work done by the opposite parties. After considering the above facts we are not in a position to attribute the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In the view of above discussions, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Hence complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 1st day of October 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Suma K.P Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Agreement (Original)
Ext.A2 - Power of Attorney
Ext.A3 series - Cash Receipts (17 Nos)
Ext.A4 - Lawyer notice Dtd.21/03/2013
Ext.A5 - Postal Receipts.
Ext.A6 - Reply notice
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext.B1 - True copy of agreement
Ext.B2 - Lawyer notice send by Adv.John John to opposite parties dtd.21/03/2013
Ext.B3 - Reply notice send by Adv.R.Manikandan to Adv.John John
Ext.C1 - Commission Report
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
DW1 - Anoop.M
Cost allowed
No Cost Allowed
