D.O.F:18/10/2016
D.O.O:20/03/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.262/2016
Dated this, the 20th day of March 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
K.R. Suresh,
S/o. K.K. Raju,
R/at ‘Valsalyam’, : Complainant
Pullur, Post: Ambalathara,
Hosdurg Taluk,
Kasaragod District
(Advs. Satheeshkumar.V & Sreekumar R.G)
And
Rajeesh,
S/o. P.V.Bhaskaran Nair,
Consulting Civil Engineer, : Opposite Party
R/at Ambalathara, Post: Pullur,
Hosdurg Taluk,
Kasaragod District
(Adv. N. Rajamohanan)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The case of the Complainant is that he hired the service of Opposite party for construction of his house. Construction of 1720 square feet area is entrusted to Opposite Party for Rs.30,50,000/-. The Opposite Party agreed to complete the house construction within 10 months from 01/09/2014. The complainant employed in gulf. Completion of house is delayed, finally completed on 09/09/2016. The plan shows area of 1887 as per plan but actual completion area is 2056 square feet. The Opposite party received Rs.30,75,000/- from complainant.
2. There is delay in completing construction, suffered a loss of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental tension and litigation costs are claimed.
3. As per IA-173/2018 complaint was amended. Amended complaint shows that width of steps of the stair are different. One of the pillars projecting out wards and doors of bed room cannot be fully enclosed within the door frame. There are leakages in various rooms thereby moisture is seen on the either side of the wall. Broken pipe is used in one of the bed room thereby complainant alleges deficiency in service and claimed compensation. The costs of articles and works carried out by the Complainant is also claimed.
4. The Opposite Party filed written version. Entrustment of house construction is admitted. But delay of 14 months in completing the work is denied. Receipt of amount is also denied. Suffering of loss or entitlement of Compensation is also denied.
5. The case of Opposite Party is that complainant and his wife entrusted work of house construction. Agreed to do the construction for Rs.1,773/- per square feet. Additional area was added later to 1896.55 square feet proportionate costs increased. Modification is demanded, alteration work carried out. The Opposite Party suffered loss of 8,00,000/-. The Opposite Party and later Complainant also complaint before police, crime 464/2016 is registered against Complainant by Ambalathara Police. The Opposite Party is entitled to claim Rs.8,00,000/- besides damages and costs.
6. Opposite Party filed additional version on amendment of complaint denying those claims.
7. Assistant Engineer LSGD filed the Expert commission report.
8. The complainant through his wife filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as PW1 and examined one witness from their side as PW2. Ext.A1 to A9 documents marked. Ext.A1 is agreement, Ext.A2 and A3 and A4 Plan, Ext.A5 to A8 are bills issued to Complainant. Ext.A9 is the deposition of Opposite Party as plaintiff in suit. Ext.C1 to C3 examine report marked.
9. The Opposite Party filed chief affidavit. Marked documents plaint Ext.B1, written statement in suit Ext.B2, B3 and B4 decree and judgment in OS 159/2017 of Munsiff Court Hosdurg.
10. From pleading, documents and evidence made available following points arise for consideration.
a) Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from Opposite Party in completing the construction
b) Whether Complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for whatrelief ?
11. The grievances of the Complainant is that there is inordinate delay in completion of the house construction which caused monitory loss and mental tension. The Opposite Party denied any deficiency in service from their side.
12. The Complainant served interrogatories. The Opposite Party admitted in para No.3 the receipt of Rs.30,75,000/- from the Complainant. His explanation is that Rs.25,000/- is towards additional work carried out by him on request by the Complainant.
13. While examining PW1 suggestion is made that there is delay in construction due to payment in small portions and not in time. The Opposite Party disputed Ext.A5 to A8 bills. PW1 admits suit 159/2019 originally decreed but appeal is pending. Details or oral understandings not stated in complaint but stated in affidavit. Details of short comings are there in leakage, pillar in sit out case projects, thereby poor construction. The witness PW2 is examined to prove residence on rental basis prior to shifting to new house by Complainant.
14. DW1 admits he has no objection about Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 stipulates 1720 square feet but constructed 2056 square feet area. Possible to modify without increasing area is denied. Deposition in Munsiff Court is marked as Ext.A9 on admission. He admitted having deposed that in case of change of position of work area and toilet no change of total area. If change is made in ground floor corresponding change occurs in first floor also. He admits that there is no agreement to construct the house as per completion plan A4. He admits that Ext.A1 agreement dated 01/09/2014 stipulates completion within 10 months but completed on 05/09/2011. Ext.A5 to A8 are bills for the articles purchased by the complainant. Against Ext.A5 decree appeal AS 35/2021 is pending.
15. Expert Commissioner filed report. Ext.C1 to C3. Ext.C1 shows that one pillar as front side projects to an extent of 10cm. Same doors are not in a position to close down. Leakage is evident, leaked water is found on walls. Damages not assessed, Ext.C1 to C3 report shows it is not possible to assess damages.
16. Ext.A5 to A8 bills shows that complainant spent additional amount of around Rs.1,35,000/-. Though DW1 disputed A5 to A8, bills he admitted while cross examination that those bill amount is paid by the Complainant for his house though more than agreed amount is already paid to Opposite Party.
17. Thus documentary evidence and oral evidences discussed here above clearly proves the deficiency of service by Opposite Party in delaying completion of house construction in time. Poor quality work and also being extra work without consent of the Complainant. There is deficiency in service due to delay in shifting to new house as scheduled. The complainant is entitled to compensation for delay in completion of construction also entitled to the amount spent for purchase of articles covered by Ext.A5 to A8, compensation for mental tension and agony due to leakage of building and defects noted in Ext.C1 to C3 reports.
18. The Consumer Redressal Commission holds that since there is inordinate delay in completion of house construction, the construction itself is in excess of area on completion, plus additional articles are purchased by the Complainant. Thereby incurred financial loss including materials, continued stay in rented building complainant is entitled to value of articles purchased by Complainant around Rs.1,35,000/- covered by Ext.A5 to A8 and rent for one year paid to rented quarters for delayed period roughly calculated at Rs.15,000/- payable by Opposite party to Complainant. The Complainant having suffered mental tension, agony due to delay in completing construction and also found loss. The Complainant claims 1,00,000/- or compensation for cost. Thus Commission is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000/- will be reasonable compensation payable by Opposite Party to the Complainant and also pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation.
19. In the result complaint is allowed in part Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand only) towards cost of articles purchased by the Complainant and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards monthly rent paid to residential quarters due to delay in completion of construction of house and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with 8% interest for the date of filing Consumer till its realization and also Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards the cost of litigation within 30 days of the date of receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1:Agreement
A2: Plan
A3: Plan
A4: Plan
A5 series are bills
A6: Bill, dated 04/08/2016
A7: Bill, dated 14/07/2016
A8: Bill, dated 04/08/2016
A9: Deposition of Opposite Party as plaintiff in suit
B1: Plaint filed
B2: Written statement in suit
B3: Additional written statement filed by the defendants
B4: Original suit No.159/2017
B5: Original suit No.159/2017
C1: Examine Report dated 16/04/2019
C2: Examine Report dated 25/11/2020
C3: Examine Report dated 25/04/2022
Witness Cross Examine
PW1: Jeni. O. Raj
PW2: K. Kunhiraman
DW1: Rajeesh. A
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
