Date of filing : 25-05-2006 Date of order : 11-03-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.69/06 Dated this, the 11th day of March 2009 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER The Multi Grade Learning Centre, Construction Committee, Rep.by its convenor, } Complainant A.Abdul Rahiman, S/o.Abdul Khader, Aloor House, Po.Muliyar. (Adv. U.S.Balan, Kasaragod) Suku Alias Sukumaran, S/o.Karunakaran, } Opposite party Berka House, Po.Muliyar, Kasaragod. (Adv.K.Vinodkumar, Kasaragod O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The factual matrix of the case is as follows:- Complainant the construction committee convenor of a Multi grade Learning Centre at Aloor in Muliyar Grama Panchayath entrusted the construction work of the learning center with the opposite party. The amount for the work was sanctioned from the MLA’s Local Fund. As per the stipulation of entrustment of work the opposite party ought to have been alone the work in accordance with the plan approved by the Asst. Executive Engineer, DRDA, Kasaragod. Opposite party received the entire amount for the construction of the work from the complainant. But opposite party failed to complete the work within the time as per the specification. As per the approved plan the thickness of the main slab should have been 12 Cm. But the opposite party constructed the main slab having a thickness of 9 cm only. The opposite party has not done the painting work of the constructed building in time. Since the painting was delayed more than a month the complainant constrained to engage coolie workers to cure the cement plastered on building with water on his own expenses. Thereby complainant suffered a pecuniary loss of Rs.5000/-. The construction materials like cement, metal, sand and jelly were supplied by the complainant to the opposite party. Since the construction of the learning center was not as per the specification of the authorities, the complainant has received only Rs.1,33,385/- from the government towards the construction, as the convenor of the construction committee. But the government has paid Rs.1,39,140/- for an identical work to another convenor of the construction committee. There by the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.5755/-. Therefore the complaint claiming Rs.15000/- from opposite party on various counts. 2. The opposite party filed versions denying all the contentions of the complainant. He also raised the maintainability of the complaint as well as the locus standi of the complainant. According to opposite party he is a collie worker doing the work of construction of wall and slab of the building. The complainant approached him on 30-01-06 and enquired whether he is ready to take the work of the wall and slab of multi grade learning center at Aloor and asked about the coolie. The opposite party told the coolie of the work. As per the direction the opposite party went to the work site on 5-2-06 at that time the work of the foundation of the building was completed. The complainant told him that he will arrange the construction materials within a week from 5-3-06. But he brought the same on 15-02-06. On the same day opposite party started his work along with other coolie worker appointed by the complainant. The construction of the wall completed on 25-02-06 itself. But the complainant failed to bring the materials for slab in time. He supplied the same on or about 01-03-06 and informed opposite party and opposite party started the work on the next day itself. The complainant was always in the work site to give directions about the work to opposite party and as per his directions the opposite party fully completed the slab work on 20-03-06 with the help of other workers. The complainant did not supply or show any plan to opposite party. The complainant directed opposite party to give 9 cm thickness to the slab. Accordingly opposite party has done the work. But actually the thickness of the slab is 10cm and as some points there may have slight difference. The opposite party was not aware about the specifications given to the complainant while the complainant was undertake the work. The opposite party did the work as a coolie worker and received coolie for the work. The complainant has neither entrusted the painting work with opposite party nor he had undertaken to do it. He is not used to undertake painting work. Hence it is baseless allegation that the complainant has suffered due to the deficiency in service of opposite party. The opposite party is not responsible for the difference in amount obtained by the complainant for the work than the amount obtained by any other party. The complainant had misappropriated the amount sanctioned for the work and he delayed the work for his own reasons. The opposite party has completed the work as per the direction and supervision of the complainant. Opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as claimed and the complaint deserves a dismissal. 3. To substantiate the claim, the complainant take out a commission. The expert commissioner Jaison Jacob counseling Engineer to Inscale Constructions inspected the building and filed his report. The report is marked as Ext.C1. Both sides heard. 4. The specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party committed deficiency in service by not doing the entrusted construction work as per the specifications given to him and as a result he had incurred additional expenses. It is also the case of the complainant that for an identical building work one Khader received an amount of Rs.1,39,140/- where as he received only Rs.1,33,385/-. According to him this loss of Rs.5766/- was occurred due to the defective construction of the building by opposite party. 5. From the outset, the case of the opposite party is that he had not undertaken the work as a contractor, but was doing the work as a coolie worker. The complainant has not given any instructions to him regarding the specification of works done by him Further the complainant was present at the work site through out the time of construction supervising the work. 6. The locus standi of the complainant was also disputed by the opposite party apart from the contention that the complainant is not a consumer. 7. The contention of the opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer cannot be accepted in view of the fact that housing construction also comes within the definition of service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. Being the convenor of the construction committee, the complainant can be considered as a beneficiary of the work and therefore he is a consumer with respect to the building constructed. But to prove the consumer relationship with the opposite party the complainant has not produced any document to show that he being the convenor of construction committee engaged opposite party as a contractor to do the construction work of the Multi grade learning center. In the absence of any agreement regarding the entrustment of work with the opposite party it is not possible reach in a conclusion that the opposite party was engaged as a contractor to do the construction work of the Multi grade Learning Centre. On the contrary the definite case of the opposite party is that he was only a coolie worker engaged to do the work of the building like other coolie workers. If that be so his service can be considered only as a contract of personal service that is outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore the complaint fails and hence dismissed with no order as to costs. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. C1. Commission Report. Pj/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
