CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K, Member Date of filing: 02/01/2009

CC / 2/ 2009

I.R.Radha Rani,

W/o.Dr.Irania Ravanan, - Complainant

Thankam Hospital Quarters,

West Yakkara, Palakkad.

( BY Adv.John John & Padma Prakash)

Vs

Premalatha,

W/o.Rajesh Subramanian, - Opposite party

Proprietor, Classic Builders,

No.15/317(2), Behind Govt.Dist.Hospital,

Palakkad- 678 001

now residing at

H.No.4/483, Sree Ganesh,

Pirayiri P.O, Palakkad.

(BY ADV. C.Vaidyanathan & C.Mohanram)

O R D E R

BY SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT

Complainant and opposite party represented. Complainant filed statement stating matter settled. Hence complaint disposed of as settled.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 10^th day of July, 2012

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member Sd/- Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2010

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.2/2009

I.R.Radha Rani,

W/o.Dr.Irania Ravanan,

Thankam Hospital Quarters,

West Yakkara,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.John John & Padma Prakash)

Vs

Premalatha,

W/o.Rajesh Subramanian,

Proprietor,

Classic Builders,

No.15/317(2),

Behind Govt. District Hospital,

Palakkad 678001.

Now residing at:

H.No.4/483,

Sree Ganesh, Pirayiri(P.O),

Palakkad. - Opposite party

(By Adv.C.Vaidyanathan & K.Divakaran)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Brief case of the complainant:

Complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party on 24.01.08 for the construction of an RCC house at the rate of Rs.940/- per sq. ft. An amount of Rs.447205 was paid as advance to opposite party. As per the agreement work was to be completed within a period of 4 months. Complainant paid Rs.12,99,653/- to

opposite party over and above the advance payment. The grievance of the complainant is that on completion of the work several defects were noticed by the complainant. Subsequently the work was inspected with the help of an expert also.

The main defects as stated by the complainant is as follows:

1. Granite slab laid is of poor quality, colour faded and scratches noted. Granite slab broken at three places in the hall and in one place in the verrandah.

2. Foundation size is only 60 X 60 cm instead of 90 X 90 cm.

3. The quantity of cements used by the opposite party is not as per the terms of agreement.

4. Only one coat of cement premium for internal walls instead of two coats.

5. Not used first quality teak wood frames for the doors and windows.

6. The number of inside doors provided is five in number contrary to seven in agreement.

7. Poor quality doors and there is gap between the door frame and the wall.

8. Switch board, switches and other electrification accessories are of poor quality.

9. CP fittings including taps, hose pipes and water heater taps are of low quality.

10. Opposite party provided only HDPE tank for water storage instead of RCC tank.

11. Gate fitted is only 10 ft instead of 12 ft.

12. Compound wall not constructed as per specifications.

13. There is leakage of two portions due to poor quality of concrete work. Grouting for rectifying the same also was not done properly.

14. Proper drainage facility not provided.

15. Painting work not proper.

Complainant further states that the expert assessed the cost of said construction as Rs.16,00,000/- Complainant has paid Rs.17,46,858/- in total and opposite party is bound to repay Rs.1,46,858/-. The defective construction amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Complainant assess an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for effecting repair. Complainant claims a total amount of Rs.5,96,858 with 12% interest till realisation.

Opposite party filed version contending the following.

Opposite party admits the agreement executed between the complainant and opposite party. According to opposite party, construction of the house started in the month of January 2008 and was completed in the month of May 2008. The completion certificate was issued by Marutharode Panchayat on 11.6.08 is handed over to the complainant. The additional work was alone remained to be completed which was also completed long before the complaint.

Opposite party also admits that Rs.940/- per sq ft. was fixed and advance amount of Rs.4,47,205/- was received and also total sum of Rs.17,46,858/- was received. Total cost of construction as per the agreement is Rs.17,88,820/-. Balance amount is due to opposite party in addition to the cost incurred for the additional work amounting to Rs.3,20,271/- in total.

As per the contention of opposite party, the modifications carried out at the desire of the complainant are as follows. Front view of sit out and kitchen portion

changed into RCC slab after removing the MS Angles. RCC over head tank changed into sintex tank, front gate was fitted into two parts of 10 ft and 2 ft. as against the original one gate of 12 ft. Various additions are also introduced at the desire of the complainant. According to opposite party, the say of the complainant that materials used are not of good quality and the mode of construction is not proper is baseless. The tiles and granites were selected and arranged directly by the complainant and her husband. According to opposite party construction was carried out with efficiency and perfection. Complaint is filed only to avoid payment due to opposite party.

Complainant and opposite party filed their respective affidavits. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of complainant. Commissioner after inspection has filed his report and is marked as Ext.C1.

Now the issues for consideration are;

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

2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?

Issues 1 & 2:

The specific case of the complainant is that opposite party has not completed the house construction within the stipulated time and also alleges several defects in the construction. The major defects complained was with respect to low quality of the granite slabs, teak woods, switches, finishing work of tiles, poor concrete work, improper drainage etc.

Opposite party on the other hand contented that the work was perfect and completed using good quality materials, majority of which was selected by the complainant and her husband. Further work was completed in time and what was left was the additional work.

We perused all the relevant documents on record. The important piece of evidence is the commission report marked as Ext.C1. Going through Ext.C1 it can be seen that no major defects as pointed out by the complainant is noted by the commissioner. Total plinth area instead of 1903 sq. ft. in the approved drawing is 1978 sq. ft. This itself shows that additional work was carried out by the opposite party. Ext.A1 also contains stipulation regarding carrying out additional work. Commissioner has answered in details against all points to be noted in the work memo. Variation from the agreement noted by the commissioner is as follows:

Inside doors 7 in the number in the agreement and 6 in number in the approved plan is changed to 5 in number. Drain constructed is not proper in some place noted. Some of the tiles laid on the front sides are broken.

Windows 7 in number is changed into 5 in number. Window grills with MS rods and flat given in the agreement is changed into MS grills with design. Providing good quality marble in the range of Rs.50/- per sq. ft. over cement mortar changed into vitrified tiles, granite slabs and tiles. The front view is done with RCC slab with decorative tiles instead of laying over MS angles. No sloping sides at roof level is provided due to which rain will flow over the external walls.

Even though the commissioner has noted certain deviation from the agreement and certain defects as stated in the preceding paragraph and as mentioned in the argument notes filed by the complainant, we are not in a position to accept the same since there is no such plea in the complaint. It is worthwhile to note that complainant has not filed any objection to the commission report.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that complainant miserably failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

In the result, complaint dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of March, 2010

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Photo copy of agreement

Ext.A2 – Copy of lawyer notice dt.19.12.08

Ext.A3(Series) – Postal receipts

Ext.A4 – Acknowledgement card

Ext.A5 – Reply notice dt.23.12.08

Ext.A6 – Copy of lawyer notice dt.30.12.08

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Ext.C1 – Commissioner’s report