DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 13^th day of June 2019 

Present  : Smt.Shiny.P.R,  President

               : Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member                              Date of Filing : 31/01/2017

      CC/19/2017

T.Sasi

S/o Kesavan kutty,

Kakkat House, West Yakkara,

Palakkad – 678 001.                                                                -           Complainant

(By Adv.Santhosh.T)                           

V/s

S.Kumaraswamy

S/o R.Subramanyian,

Sree Narayana Nagar, CBE Road,

Palakkad – 678 001.                                                                -           Opposite party

 (By Adv.Vanitha.G)

                                                                  O R D E R

By Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member  

Brief facts of complaint

The complainant has purchased a small plot of land in Malampuzha – 2 Village for the purpose of constructing a house there for living with his family.  Complainant pleads that he has started the construction of the house in the said land and has completed the centering work of the ground floor.  Thereafter he was transferred from Palakkad and being difficult for him to continue the work, he has entrusted the rest of the work to the opposite party in this case.  According to the complainant he and the opposite party have entered into two agreements for the completion of the work.  The 1^st agreement was entered into on 18/06/2015 for the works to be done at the ground floor and another agreement on 25/08/2015 for the works to be done on the 1^st floor.  The opposite party has admitted to do the work as promised for a consideration of Rs.17,00,000/- in total.  The complainant has paid Rs.16,50,000/-, but till this date the work was not completed; further the time fixed for the completion of the works were 4 months and 6 months respectively, but even after making 97% of the total admitted payment, the opposite party has not completed the work but has done the work very defectively.  The entire structure was damaged and the entire fittings were done defectively with inferior quality materials which can be ascertained, if a licensed engineer visits the site as pleaded by the complainant.  The complainant has taken a loan from State Bank of India for the completion of the construction of a house to have a residence for his family, especially for his aged mother suffering from cancer.  According to the complainant, the opposite party has not yet completed the same, though he received the lion share of his consideration and the essence of this contract is time.  The opposite party also has sent a lawyer notice raising illegal, baseless and false contentions to which a reply was sent by the complainant through his lawyer.  Complainant pleads that he has purchased many items including the granite for the ground floor; the opposite party has offered to complete the work of his house and committed deficiency in completing the same.  Complainant also pleads that he will have to spend Rs.7,50,000/- to complete repairs of the house as of now and due to deficiency in the work of the opposite party, complainant will suffer a loss of Rs.7,50,000/-.  Complainant also adds that he has informed the opposite party several times to complete the work properly after repairing the damaged parts, but his plea was rejected by the opposite party.  Last request was made by the complainant on 29/12/2016 to the opposite party on which date the last payment was also made by him to the opposite party.  Complainant prays to this Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite party for payment of Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation for the defective work done by the opposite party, for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards loss, damages and mental agony suffered by the complainant etc..

The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party to enter appearance and file his version.  According to the opposite party, except those specifically admitted all other allegations and averments made in the complaint are denied by this opposite party.  This opposite party denies as incorrect the averments made in the complaint that the complainant has started construction of the house in the said land, has completed the centering work of its ground floor, there after he has entrusted the rest of the work to the opposite party, as the complainant was transferred from Palakkad and it has become difficult for him to continue the work.  According to the opposite party the averments are true in the complaint that complainant and the opposite party have entered into two agreements dated.18/06/2015 & 25/08/2015 for the work to be done on the ground floor and for the work to be done at the 1^st floor respectively and promised to complete the work for a consideration of Rs.17,00,000/- in total are true, but denies as incorrect the averments in the complaint that complainant paid Rs.16,50,000/-, but till this day the work is not completed, the time fixed for the completion of the works is 4 months and 6 months respectively, even after paying 97% of the admitted payment the opposite party has not completed the work, has done the work very defectively, the entire structure has been damaged, the entire fittings were done defectively with inferior quality materials and the same can be ascertained, if a licensed engineer visits the house.  This opposite party also denies as baseless and untrue the averments made in the complaint that the complainant has taken a loan from State Bank of India for the completion of the work and to have a residence for his family especially for his aged and ailing mother, the opposite party has not completed the same, although he has received the lion share of the consideration, the complainant has purchased many items including the granite for the ground floor, the opposite party has offered to complete the work of the house and has made deficiency in completing the same, the complainant has to spend Rs.7,50,000/- due to the opposite party’s deficiency in the work, the complainant informed the opposite party several times to properly complete the work after repairing the damaged parts and the same was rejected by this opposite party etc.. This opposite party contends that he is a reputed building contractor with more than 20 years experience and has constructed various residential buildings in Palakkad town.  The complainant approached this opposite party for constructing a residential building in survey number 364/4, block number 37 at Kottekkad, Palakkad; the complainant has constructed the foundation, basement and superstructure walls, lintels of the disputed house through a surveyor and a labour contract.  The complainant without having proper knowledge about the building construction has brought himself inferior quality materials and constructed the same.  The complainant engaged a local surveyor for low cost, not paid him for the work done, the supervisor fought with the complainant, left the premises and the said construction stood as it is for more than four months.  Then, being scared of the stability and firmness of the subject house approached this opposite party to complete the disputed house.  Accordingly, on 18/06/2015, the complainant and the opposite party entered into a construction agreement for ground floor construction of the residential building for Rs.11,00,000/- and having been satisfied with the ground floor work the opposite party was also assigned the work of constructing the 1^st floor of the said building and the opposite party and the complainant entered into another agreement for the 1^st floor construction on 25/08/2015 for Rs.6,00,000/- as per the specifications of the construction made in the agreements.  This opposite party also contends that he constructed the subject residential building as per the agreed terms and conditions of the agreements but the complainant was paying the consideration amounts in instalments at proper intervals but delayed the stage wise payments on many occasions which is seen from the endorsements made in the agreements.  According to the opposite party the complainant kept a balance of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the opposite party as per the agreements which he had promised to clear on handing the key on completion certificate, but the complainant did not pay the promised amount.  the opposite party also contends that complainant asked the opposite party to purchase living area tiles, instead of selecting Rs.50/- per square feet, complainant selected tiles costing Rs.64/- per square feet, in the case of bathroom tiles instead of selecting Rs.30/- per square feet complainant selected Rs.37/- per square feet, in the case of granite for stair case, instead of selecting Rs.50/- per square feet complainant selected Rs.120/- per square feet and handrails in balcony and sitout having more value than that as per the agreed terms.  Thus according to this opposite party he has spent Rs.48,000/- more for purchasing the materials in deviation from the agreed terms.  According to this opposite party complainant has asked the opposite party to do extra work such as well brick work, well polishing, charupady work, ferro cement work, wood work in window shelter, outside iron steps, dining hall washbasin etc..which is not in the scope of the agreement.  This opposite party contends that he has done the work as per the requests made by the complainant and has incurred an extra amount of Rs.65,000/- for the extra work done by him in addition to the agreed work as per the agreement.  According to this opposite party all the bills regarding the extra works have been handed over to the complainant by this opposite party while handing over the key; the opposite party had completed the construction of the residential building and handed over the premises with key to the complainant.  The keys were handed over to the complainant by this opposite party on the promise made by the complainant that he will settle all the amounts due to this opposite party, as contended by this opposite party.  This opposite party also argues that for the purchase of the material in deviation from the agreement and for the extra work done by the opposite party, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,13,000/- to the opposite party and the complainant is also liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party being the balanced amount to be paid as per the agreement.   Thus, according to this opposite party complainant is liable to pay Rs.2,13,000/-. Although the opposite party approached the complainant in person and asked him several times to pay the balance amount complainant did not clear the balance amount.  Hence on 16/11/2016, the opposite party sent a lawyer notice to the complainant demanding the entire amount of Rs.2,13,000/-.  The complainant received the notice on 18/11/2016 and sent a reply notice dated.01/12/2016 raising untenable contentions and has not paid any amount towards the amount due by him to this opposite party.  The opposite party further contends that it is learnt that the complainant is trying to sell the disputed house to defeat this opposite party.  This opposite party has also filed a suit to recover the balance amount of Rs.2,13,000/- from the complainant before the Hon’ble Principal Munsiff Court at Palakkad as OS 188/2017 and an IA/664/2017 for furnishing security and pass an order of attachment of the said house against the complainant, in which according to the opposite party, Hon’ble court has granted attachment of the said house.  This opposite party contends that in-order to escape from the liability and to delay the payment to this opposite party, the complainant has filed this false and vexatious complaint.  Hence this opposite party prays to this Hon’ble Forum to accept his contentions and dismiss the complaint with cost.

Complainant filed proof affidavit so also the opposite party.  Complainant was cross examine as PW1 and from the side of the complainant Exts.A1 to A5 were marked, Ext.A5 in series with objection.  Commission reports were marked as Exts.C1 (a) & C2(a).  1^st Advocate Commissioner Mini Francis was examined as CW1 and expert commissioner Sheriff as CW2.  Opposite party was examined as DW1.  Exts.B1, B2 & B3 were marked from the side of the opposite party and Ext.B1 marked with objection and Ext.B3 marked in series.  Adv.Suresh Kumar (2^nd advocate commissioner)was examined as CW3 and 2^nd witness was cross examined as DW2.  Complainant and the opposite party were heard. 

The following issues arise in this case for consideration by this Forum.  

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party?
2. If so, the relief and cost available to the complainant?

Issues 1 & 2

            To defend his pleadings complainant has produced Exts.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is a contract agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party on 18/06/2015 which shows details of the works, details of amounts paid to the opposite party on different dates, area statement etc… Ext.A2 is a contract agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party on 25/08/2015 which discloses the details of the works, endorsements of payments made by the complainant to the opposite party area statement etc… Ext.A3 is a lawyer notice caused to be issued to the complainant by the opposite party which calls upon the complainant to pay the opposite party Rs.2,13,000/- within ten days of the receipt of this notice.  Ext.A4 is a legal reply notice caused to be issued to the opposite party by the complainant calling upon the opposite party not to proceed legally against him.  Opposite party has filed Exts.B2 & B3 series to support their contention. 

            Ext.C1 is a report submitted by 1^st Advocate Commissioner Smt.Mini Francis in this dispute.  Before submitting her report she stated to have inspected the building in dispute constructed in survey number 364/4, block number 37 at Palamkode, kottekkad.  As per the report the materials used for construction are not as specified in the agreement.  Instead of teak wood, country wood is used for main doors and windows.  Readymade frames are used for door frames which are seemed to be cheaper in quality without any finishing.  Window frames are made with cheaper quality country wood which is not usually preferred for construction work.  Door paneling is done with cheaper quality wood resulting in cracks in the panel.  In the front door the wooden frames are not properly fixed with panels which results in gap in between frames and panels.  The decorative wooden carving done on the front door is lacking any artistic finishing.  The polishing work of the front door is not yet done and lock also not fixed.  The fiber doors of the attached bathroom of the bedroom in the upstairs and ground floor are seen broken.  The door frame of the bed room in ground floor is not properly mounted in the wall and hence there is a gap in between the doors frame and adjacent wall.  Instead of using country wood door for the two bed rooms and store rooms readymade soft wood doors are used.  The outer door in the upstairs is made with tender aged teak wood resulting in gap due to cracks.  Similarly cracks could be seen in the outer door facing backside in the upstairs.  In the said door on the side where the hinges are fixed there is crack from top to bottom.  No doors and windows are polished and painted.  All window panel glasses are not properly inserted and fixed so that there are gaps in the windows.  More over many of the glasses are having scratches and two glasses are seen broken.  In the kitchen area window door frames are done with small pieces of wood which has resulted in gap in joints.  The racks fixed in the bed rooms are made with ferro cement and are having cracks.  Staircase leading to roof top from 1^st floor is made with cast-iron and is not having side railings.  In the upstair bedroom the wall of the bathroom is not in proportionate measurement.  In the open terrace of the house roofs slab and parapet wall are not properly plastered.  Granite used in the sitout and steps are not ground and shaped properly.  The walls are painted with white cement of inferior quality and it has to be repainted.  Drainage pit is not dug, so the work of the waste water outlet is not yet completed.  Regarding the quantum of damages and estimate for rectifying the defects the same is produced by qualified valuer Mr.Sheriff in his report. 

            In his report marked as Ext.C1 (a), Mr.Sheriff submits the following.  He has inspected the disputed property on 08/02/2017.  He states that he was informed that the shuttering works of the ground floor RCC roofing was completed by the complainant and he was not in a position to arrange the construction as he was transferred to another place.  He entrusted the balance works to the opposite party to complete the construction and the balance works include the following. 

1. RCC roofing with concrete (except the centering works).

2. To construct the 1^st floor as per the revised plan (complete).

The main defects the expert commissioner has noted are the following items of works.

1.  All the doors and windows and ventilators are made of inferior quality wood, are bent, misaligned and require major repairs and most of the shutter frames are to be replaced with good wood.

2.  All the window shutters are made of inferior quality wood and are to be reworked.

3.  All the ventilators are to be repaired and corrected. 

4.  The walls are out of alignment but the ground floor is constructed by the complainant and the fault is with ground floor itself and subsequent works can be corrected.

5.  The whole cement coating is using lime powder and has to be scrapped and repainted with white cement. 

According to the expert commissioner rectification works wood cost Rs.4,65,000/- in total. 

            The opposite party filed a petition to set aside the above commission reports filed by the 1^st advocate commissioner and expert approved valuer on the ground that the report is contracting, false, arbitrary and without any basis.  According to the opposite party, the commissioner and the expert have not assessed the disputed house properly.  Both the commissioners and expert’s views about the doors, windows, wood, painting and plastering are conflicting.  The expert’s report does not state how the rectification work amount is arrived at; the commissioner has not verified or assessed the expert report and arbitrarily filed the report.  As per complainant’s request this opposite party has done various works extra which have not been reported by the commissioner or the expert.  The commissioner and the expert have not applied their mind in assessing the wood work, painting and reported deficiency in the work against the opposite party without any reason.  If the present commission report and expert report are accepted as such it would be a loss to the opposite party and a gain to the complainant.  Hence this opposite party appeals to set aside the commission report along with expert report and direct the commissioner and expert to file a fresh report considering the aspects stated in the opposite party’s objections to the commission report.  The complainant’s counsel also has filed objections to the report filed by the commissioner.  According to him the expert who has accompanied the commissioner has not properly quantified the damages.  The commissioner has noted that the entire doors and windows are made on inferior quality wood.  It will cost more than Rs.2,00,000/- to correct the defects with good quality wood.  Further the entire house has to be replastered which will cost more than what is shown in the commission report; to complete the entire work it will cost more than what is assessed by the commissioner. 

            The 1^st commissioner has returned the commission warrant stating her inconvenience to execute the warrant.  Hence another advocate Mr.K.Sureshkumar was appointed by this Forum as the 2^nd advocate commissioner in this case.  He is to be assisted by Mr.A.M.Sheriff, Chartered Engineer who is appointed as expert to the 2^nd advocate commissioner. 

            In his report marked as Ext.C2 the advocate commissioner Mr.K.Sureshkumar has stated that the scope of this commission is to visit the disputed property and file a detailed report with regard to the facts mentioned in the work memo filed by both parties.  Mr.Sheriff, expert valuer appointed to assist him has filed a detailed report which may be treated as a part of this commission report.  He has prepared a detailed report with regard to the facts asked to be noted by the parties.  The advocate commissioner has visited the property once after giving intimation to both parties. 

            In the report submitted by expert valuer(marked as Ext.C2(a) the following points are to be noted.  The expert valuer has given answers to the work memo given by the parties.  As per this report, the complainant has completed all the items as per agreement except: septic tank dispersion trench (value Rs.2,500/-), supplying of locks and similar hardware to doors and windows (value Rs.5,000/-), charupadi balance works (Rs.3,000/-), painting balance works (Rs.5,000/-), total amount Rs.15,500/-.  The total square feet area of the building was measured by the expert and area is: plinth area-ground floor + 1^st floor is 1,700 sq.ft.  This report also mentions that the building is RCC construction with specifications given in the report.  It also states about the extra work done by the opposite party, the cost of the extra work done and total cost of the extra work is Rs.1,83,900/-.  As per the report, the front room was varnished and painted and hence he was unable to identify the wood, the cost of painting as Rs.50,000/-.  The opposite party has performed no work beyond and more than what is agreed as per the construction agreement.  The family is living in the house, the toilets are not functioning and there are lot of other complaints reported by the family.  This report also states that all the rectification works mentioned in the commission report are completed by the complainant such as complete walls and ceiling the original line coating scrapped and bare putty coating is applied, the front door is corrected and rectified, all doors and windows are rectified, charupadi works are completed, sanitary works are rectified and completed, a well is found completed, and external toilet was constructed, a side compound wall and gate works were found completed, yard concreted and front portion tiling is completed and flooring works found completed.  This report also shows that for the above said rectification work amount spent is Rs.5,90,000/-(approximately).  This report is concluded by the expert valuer by giving a summery as:-

1. Cost incurred for construction of foundation(amount spent by the complainant) –Rs.3,00,000/-
2. Amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party – Rs.16,40,000/-
3. Amount spent by the complainant for rectification works(not verified) – Rs.5,90,000/-

Total:25,30,000/-

Cost of compound wall, gate, well and other items extra.

In this connection the following depositions are also to be noted.

1. Depositiion by CW1(1^st advocate commissioner, Smt.Mini Francis)” Cu sI«nS¯nse defects t\cn«v I­dnªXmWv.  \nÀ½mW XIcmdmWv F¶v Adnbmw.  Teak wood hmXn F\n¡v I­mednbmw.  t]mfnjv sNbvXncp¶nÃ.  Teak acw shÅ \nd¯nepÅXmbncp¶p.  aqs¸¯m¯ acw BbXpsIm­mWv AXv.  Drainage pitDw Drainage work Dw AhnsS sNbvXp I­nÃ.”
2. CW3 depositiion(2^nd advocate commissioner Mr.Sureshkumar)” Question 4 {]Imcw wood sâ nature Dw report sN¿m³ km[n¨n«nÃ.  FÃm hmXnepIfpw paint ASn¨v hr¯nbm¡nbXn\m acw identify sN¿m³ km[n¨n«nÃ.   I­ ImgvNIÄ BWv report sNbvXXv.  Rm³ inspection \S¯p¶ kab¯v ]Wn ]qÀ¯oIcn¨ Hcp hoSmWv I­Xv.  Bscms¡bmWv ]WnIÄ ]qÀ¯oIcn¨Xv F¶Xns\¸än Rm³ enquiry H¶pw \S¯nbn«nÃ.”
3. CW2 deposition(A.M.Sheriff, expert valuer)”I­ defects rectify sN¿m\pÅ GItZiw hcp¶ kwJybmWv report sâ (Ext.C1) c­mas¯ t]Pn ImWn¨ncn¡p¶Xv.  Ext.C2 c­maXv kµÀin¨ kabw defects rectify sN¿m³ th­nhcp¶ sNehmWv Ccp]¯n c­v e£¯n ]Xn\mbncw F¶v FgpXnbn«pÅXv.  Ground floor am{Xw hmÀ¸phsc ]Wnbp¶Xn\v foundation \v 2 to 2.5 lakhs Dw, lintel and shade   hsc 3.5 e£hpw hmÀ¸n\pw IqSn GItZiw 8 e£w sNehp hcpw.  Plastering CÃmsX structure am{Xw BZy kµÀi\ kab¯v I­ncp¶  defects c­maXv kµÀin¨ kab¯v I­ncp¶nÃ. rectify sNbvXXmbn I­p.  BZys¯ kµÀi\ kabw 1^st floor \n¶v apIfnte¡v t]mIp¶ staircase(Ccp¼nsâ tImWn) s]m«n InS¡p¶XmbmWv I­Xv.    Ground floor tebpw 1^st floor tebpw Nmcp]Sn BZys¯ kµÀi\ kabw incomplete Bbncp¶p.  c­mas¯ kµÀi\kabw Nmcp]SnbpsS ]Wn ]qÀ¯nbmbn ImWs¸«p.  BZys¯ visit \pw c­mas¯ visit \pw CSbnepÅ rectification work Bcv sNbvXp F¶v AdnbnÃ.  47 hÀjambn civil engineering field  Rm³ work sN¿p¶p.  A{Xbpw hÀjs¯ A\p`hw h¨v kXykÔambn X¿mdm¡nb report IfmWv Exts.C1 and C2.  Ext.C1 (a) bn table rectify sN¿m\pÅ value BWv.  Ext.C1(a) bn page. No 2   points Nos.1 to 5 BWv major defects Bbn note sNbvXXv.  AXns\ quantify sNbvXXmWv table Bbn ImWn¨n«pÅXv.  Ext.C1(a) photograph  ImWn¨ncn¡p¶Xv 1^st floor BWv. Ext.C1(a) page. No 4  front teakwood door correcting F¶mWv Dt±in¨Xv.  Hcp front door am{Xta DÅq. Ext.C1 (a) main defects point No.4  ]dªncn¡p¶ Imcy§Ä icnbmWv.  Out of alignment BWv tiling s\ _m[n¡pw.  A\ymb ]«nIhIIfn ASn¨n«pÅXv lime powder BsW¶Xv a\Ênem¡nbXv sXm«t¸mÄ I¿n h¶p.  F\n¡dnbmw white cement is a kind of cement.  Commission report  FXnÀI£n¡v C¯c¯nepÅ Hcp hoSv ]Wnbp¶Xn\v Ccp]¯n c­v e£¯n ]Xn\mbncw cq] hcpw F¶v FgpXnbn«p­v.  calculation statement kaÀ¸n¨n«nÃ.  Work Bcv sNbvXp F¶v F\n¡dnbnÃ.  iin sNbvXp F¶mWv ]dªXv.  Question No.3  answer se wood work in the window shutter double \v Bbncw cq] F¶v FgpXnbXv sam¯w windows Bbncp¶nÃ.  AXnsâ repair charges BWv.  Front room se  doors am{Xw varnished BWv.  AXpI­v a\Ênembn. aäpÅ  rooms se  FÃmw paint sNbvXn«pÅXmWv.  c­mas¯ report  rectification charges A©v e£¯n sXm®qdmbncw ImWn¨ncn¡p¶Xv Rm³ Xs¶ assess sNbvXXmWv.    ”

We have perused the affidavits, agreements entered into the reports of the advocate

commissioner’s and the expert valuer and their depositions regarding the disputed building in this case.  We observe that the works of the ground floor of the disputed building was partly done by the complainant and construction of the 1^st floor was not fully done by the complainant.  Therefore the ground floor work of the building was partly entrusted to the opposite party to the extent not done by the complainant and construction of the 1^st floor was fully entrusted to the opposite party by the complainant.  As per the report (Ext.C1) filed by the 1^st Advocate commissioner many defects in construction done by the opposite party are pointed out by her, the materials used for construction were also reported to be of inferior quality.  We observe that as per the expert valuer’s reports also (Exts.C1 (a) & C2 (a)) many deficiencies in construction are noted such as all the doors, windows and ventilators are made of inferior quality wood, they are therefore bent misaligned and require major repairs, the whole cement coating is by using lime powder and it has to be scrapped and repainted with white cement.  We also view that as a result of a lot of deficiencies and defects in construction by the opposite party, the complainant has to incur huge rectification expenditure which is also confirmed by expert valuer in his reports.  As per Ext.C2 (a) report of the expert valuer all the rectification works mentioned in his report are completed by the complainant and for the said rectification work amount spent is Rs.5,90,000/-.  This report also states as summary that cost incurred for construction of foundation which is spent by the complainant is Rs.3,00,000/-, and amount spent by the complainant for rectification works is Rs.5,90,000/-.  We also observe that the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party as per the endorsements made in the agreements on different dates totalled Rs.16,50,000/-.  It is also clear from the depositions made by CW1, CW2 & CW3 that opposite party is seen to have committed many deficiencies and defects in his construction of the disputed building, besides using inferior quality materials which enough demonstrates that the opposite party has been seen to have committed a grave deficiency in construction of the said building; this is inspite of the fact that complainant has paid Rs.16,50,000/-, lions share of the admitted amount to the opposite party.  At the same time we observe that out of Rs.1,83,900/-, the cost of extra work done by the opposite party (serial number a to l) only the cost of the following works is allowed because they are included in the agreement between the complainant and the opposite party, namely 1. Wood work in window shelter double Rs.1,000/- 2. Wash basin in the dining hall Rs.8,000/- 3. Value of vetrified tiles Rs.60,000/- therefore the total amount of extra work done by the opposite party which can be allowed is Rs.69,000/- similarly from the rectification works done by the complainant only the following can be allowed

            Therefore total cost of rectification made by the complainant which is allowed and within the scope of the agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party is Rs.3,61,000/-.  After deducting Rs.69,000/- being the cost of extra works done by the opposite party and Rs.50,000/- yet to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party being the balance of contract price agreed.  Therefore the total amount to be paid to the complainant is Rs.2,42,000/-. 

After considering the above we decide to allow the complaint. 

            We order the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.2,42,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty two thousand only) towards the total cost of rectification made by the complainant, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family, and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards cost of proceedings incurred by the complainant. 

            The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order; failing which the complainant is also entitled to realize 9% interest p.a from the opposite party on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization.   

Pronounced in the open court on this the 13^th day of  June 2019.  

                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                                  Shiny.P.R                                                                                

                                 President

                                    Sd/-

                 V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                                Member

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  -  Original contract agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite

                party on 18/06/2015

Ext.A2            -  contract agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party on

               25/08/2015

Ext.A3            -  Copy of lawyer notice caused to be issued to the complainant by the opposite party

Ext.A4            -  Copy of legal reply notice caused to be issued to the opposite party by the complainant

Ext.A5 series – Original bills (65 No’s) (Marked with objection)

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Ext.B1  -  Copy of building ownership certificate (Marked with objection)

Ext.B2  -  Certified copy of judgement in the court of Principal Munsiff of Palakkad

Ext.B3 series   -  Documents regarding 19/04/2016 building number issued by the Secretary

                           Marutharoad Grama Panchayath

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1     -  T.Sasi

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW1    -  S.Kumaraswamy

DW2    - Manoj.S

Commission Witness

CW1    -  Mini Francis

CW2    -  A.M.Sheriff

CW3    -  Sureshkumar

Commission Reports

Ext.C1 -  Commission report dated.03.03.2017submitted by the Advocate Commissioner 

   Smt.Mini Francis

 Ext.C1 (a)-  1^st report dated.11.02.2017 of the  expert valuer Sri.A.M.Sheriff with

                   photographs

Ext.C2  -  Commission report dated.16.02.2017submitted by the expert commissioner

    Mr.Sureshkumar

Ext.C2 (a)-  2^nd report dated.11.02.2017 of the expert valuer  Mr.A.M.Sheriff

                  with photographs

Cost

            Rs.15,000/-