IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of October, 2016
Filed on 15.01.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No. 17/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. David Saji Sri. Sibichan
Kattokkalam Thundiyil
Chathurthiakary P.O. Chathurthiakary P.O.
Venattukadu Venattukadu
(By Adv. D. Salim Kumar) ((By Adv. B. Somanadha Kurup)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant entered into an oral agreement with the opposite party for the construction of a hall and two rooms, kitchen, bathroom and shed and it was an extension of the old building. As per the agreement, opposite party was started the work on December, 2013. The materials like sand, metal and bricks supplied by the complainant. The other materials and labourers are to be supplied by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to construct the building as per the agreement and during the time of flood also he had to continue the construction and that caused much damage to the wall of the old building. The complainant paid Rs.4,31,975/- to the opposite party. As per the bill submitted by the opposite party Rs.2,11,044/- was spent for the materials and 2,20,931/- was spent towards labour charges. The bills were fabricated and the materials used for construction were of poor quality. The opposite party asked exorbitant amount towards labour charges. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
It is true that there was an oral agreement between the complainant and opposite party for the construction of extension of old residential building and for providing skilled labourers @ Rs.500/- per sq. ft. The construction of the work is almost completed, but the complainant denied the payment as promised and had committed breach of promise. The wall of the old building was already broken and was the reason for making the extension and hence the allegation of the cause of breakage of old wall is absolutely false. The opposite party had purchased building materials for Rs.2,11,044/- and he is entitled to get total labour charges of Rs.3,75,559/-. So the balance of Rs.1,54,628/- is liable to be received from the complainant. There is no defect and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. One witness was examined as PW2. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A3 marked subject to objection. Opposite party was examined as RW1. One witness was examined as RW2. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B3.
4. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant entrusted the work for the construction of extension of his old building. It is also an admitted fact that there is no written agreement and the work undertaken by the opposite party was on the basis of an oral agreement. According to the complainant, opposite party failed to complete the construction as per the oral agreement. The further allegation of the complainant is that since the opposite party continued the work during the period of flood, there was a crack on the wall of the old residential building. In the proof affidavit, complainant stated that there was defect on the new building also. It is pertinent to notice that the complainant failed to take an expert commissioner to prove the damage caused the building due to the construction done by the opposite party. But at the same time, while cross examining the RW1 to the question put forward by the learned counsel of the complainant, “ …..........................................................” In addition to that another question, “ …................................................................................................” The complainant had entrusted the construction of his house to the opposite party with good faith in him never expect this kind of an answer from him. The above answer made by the opposite party itself is an admission to prove that the building he had constructed is defective and hence there is defect and deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. It is an admitted fact the complainant had paid Rs.4,31,975/-. According to the complainant, the bills submitted by the opposite party are fabricated. But it is not proved by the complainant. According to the opposite party, he had completed the work, but complainant had not paid the balance amount of Rs.1,54,628/-. The opposite party is bound to cure the defects in the construction by doing necessary repairs in the building and after finishing the work, the complainant shall pay the balance amount of Rs.1,54,628/- to the opposite party.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to complete the work by repairing damage caused to the construction. On completing the work, complainant has to pay Rs.1,54,628/- (Rupees one lakh fifty four thousand six hundred and twenty eight only) to the opposite party. No further amount as to compensation or costs. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2016. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - David Saji (Witness)
PW2 - C.G. Ashok kumar (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Advocate notice dated 19.11.2014
Ext.A1(a) - Postal receipt
Ext.A2 - Reply notice dated 29.11.2014
Ext.A3 series - Receipts and one cash bill (9 Nos.) (Subject to objection)
Ext.A4 - Copy of the application before the S.I. of Police, Pulinkunnu
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Ouseph Kurian (Sibichan) (Witness)
RW2 - Subhash (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the reply notice dated 29.11.2014
Ext.B2 - Pages of diary of the opposite party
Ext.B3 - Details of labour charge
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
