By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-
The complaint filed against the opposite party for the defective truss work on the roof of the complainant's residence.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows. The opposite party is entrusted to make truss work upon the roof of the complainant's residence. The construction work was intended in order to prevent the leaking of the concrete slab. On the assurance, the work was entrusted to him and in different occasions for the completion of the truss work and roofing of it the opposite party received Rs.1,75,000/-.
3. The truss work and the roofing done upon it was not proper and sufficient enough to prevent the water entrance in to the ceiling of the house. On raining because of the defective work of the opposite party the water instead of flowing out, flow in to the ceiling of the house. The opposite party was asked to rectify the defects. However the opposite party instead of rectifying the truss work and thatching upon it he untied the pipes and other ancillary arrangements done and went away. Several times afterwards the complainant approached the opposite party to get the house waterproof, whereas the opposite party was not amenable to rectify the defects. Instead the opposite party sought out one or other reasons to evade himself from the liability. The defective construction of the opposite party caused heavy loss to the complainant. The incubants in the house could not spent themselves inside the house on rainy time due to the flow of rain water into the house.
4. There may be an order directing the opposite party to rectify the defective truss work and to make the opposite party to compensate the complainant with cost of Rs.50,000/- for rectification of the truss work.
5. The opposite party is declared exparte.
6. The Points in consideration are:-
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in the construction of the complainant's house?
2. Relief and Cost.
7. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consist of the proof affidavit of the complainant. Ext.C1 is the document produced for the complainant.
8. The dispute in issue is in respect of the defective construction of truss work upon the roof of the complainant's house. A commissioner expert is appointed to examine and report. The expert commissioner filed his inspection report which is marked as Ext.C1. The report in short states that on his examination pouring water into the roof observed that water flows in to the room instead of going out. According to the expert commissioner the distance in between the two anglair for the thatch work at the most must be of 45 cm. In this case the distance between 2 anglair is 75 cm. Similarly to take away the water falling from roof, no sufficient arrangement is done with PVC, herein also water is getting inside the roof instead of get it out. The materials used for trussing roof is substandard. According to expert commissionerto rectify the defects an additional amount of Rs.55,000/- is necessary. The expert commissioner has not detailed the expenditure criteria instead stated expected expense.
9. In absence of any adverse inferences and upon the report of the expert it is to be considered that the construction work done by the opposite party upon the roof of the complainant's house is defective one. The complainant is to be compensated to meet the expenditure for the additional work that to be done by the complainant.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) along with cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) to the complainant for the defective construction work. This is to be complied by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 24th April 2012.
Date of Filing:26.08.2011.
