DOF.04-01-2013
DO13-06-2013
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President
Dated this, the 13th day of June 2013
C.C.No.5 /2013
Muhammed Ashraf,
‘Sharaf Manzil’
Muzhappilangad Amsom Desom,
Kannur Taluk
Complainant
P.Semith,
S/o.Purushothaman,
Civil Engineering Consultant,
Potheri House,
Near Talap Ambalam,
Kannur. Opposite party
O R D E R
Sri.K.Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to complete the construction work of the house of the complainant immediately and to pay Rs.3,00,000 as compensation for the delay caused to complete the construction together with cost of this proceedings.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant has entrusted opposite party to construct complainant’s house on the basis of an agreement dated 08-03-2010. The opposite party assured to complete the construction and to handover the house fit ready for residence within 6 months. As per the terms of the agreement complainant was liable to pay Rs.7,32,550 as total consideration for the construction. Complainant paid the entire amount over and above on the request of the opposite party complainant paid more amounts in different stages of the work, even then opposite party did not complete the construction work within the stipulated time of 6 months. Complainant was also entrusted plastering work to opposite party and to concrete the floor. There after the laying of tiles of the roof and floor has also been entrusted to opposite party. The laying of the tiles on the floor had been entrusted to opposite party on March 1st week 2012 fixing Rs.1,10,000 as the cost. It was then agreed to complete the work on 15-04-2012. But the work has not been completed even after 8 months. The square feet agreed to complete the construction as per the agreement was 2093 sq.ft whereas the completed plinth area was only 1900 sq.ft. The delay in completing the work as well as deviation from the agreement in respect of total area of square feet completely complainant sustained heavy loss. Hence this complaint.
Forum has sent notice to opposite party but the same returned with endorsement’ unclaimed’. Which is taken as served. Opposite party remained absent through out. Expert commission appointed by the Forum on the application of the complainant and submitted his report before the Forum , Commissioner has stated in the report that he has issued registered notice and also contacted opposite party through telephone before the inspection. But opposite party did not care to be present at the spot.
The main question to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
The complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit in tune with his pleadings. Ext.A1 is the agreement between the complainant and opposite party. Ext.A2 is the copy of the agreement which also reveals endorsement of payment. Ext.A1 proves that the opposite party was entrusted to make construction of the house of the complainant. The affidavit evidence of complainant states as follows: Opposite party did not complete the construction work of the house of the complainant as per the terms of the agreement, Ext.A1 even though complainant has paid the amount over and above the agreed amount of Rs.7,32,550. So also for the plastering work and laying of tiles opposite party obtained more than that of the agreed amount. The finishing work of the plastering entrusted with the opposite party was performed quite unsatisfactorily and the tiles work has not been completed as agreed upon.
The report of the expert commissioner, Ext.A3 goes to show that the work of the structure of the building has been completed satisfactory by the opposite party. But the commissioner has obsercved that the plastering work has not been completed satisfactorily. According to his report there is no proper leveling in plastering work done on the wall surface. Report Ext. A3, further says that the laying work of the floor has only been completed partially. He has also opined that the laying is seen sunk some places and pointing work is not done properly. The commissioner has also pointed out that the balance places where tiles are required to be provided. Expert commissioner further opined that an amount of Rs.50,000 is required to finishing the work done by the opposite party/contractor as per agreement.
Opposite party has not taken care to appear before the Forum and contest the case. This can be considered only as a tactice applied by opposite party as an attempt to be escaped from the liability, that may probably arise from the said matter in issue. He did not deserve for any consideration for the deliberate absence and non contesting of the matter.
Taking into the facts and circumstances of the case and that of available evidence on record there is nothing wrong in arriving conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party since it is quite evident that the plastering work is done with improper leveling on the wall surface and laying tiles is done with improper pointing work and sunk in some places. There is nothing to disbelieve PW1 and Ext.A3 report of the expert commissioner. This is a case where in complainant paid more than Rs.10,00,000. Moreover the total squire feet of construction are also less than that of the agreement. The endorsement of Ext.A1 and A2 goes to show that opposite party has received not less than Rs.1,030,000 apart from the payment for plastering and tile work. Thus the Forum is the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in his construction work of the complainant, which can only be compensated at least paying the amount of Rs.50,000. Opposite party is also liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,000 as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Order passed accordingly.
In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000(Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation together with Rs.1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @10% per annum from the date of order till payment. Complainant is also entitled to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection Act.
Sd/-
President
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1& A2.Agreement and copy of the agreement executed by the
complainant and OP
A3.Commission report
Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil
Witness examined for either side: Nil
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
