SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019  for an order directing  the OPs to pay an amount of  Rs.11,39,049/- to the complainant   towards the total loss incurred for curing the defects of the  apartment construction  and other works and Rs.2,00,000/- as the compensation for mental agony caused  and cost of proceedings  to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  on  the  part of OP’s.

The brief  of the complaint :

    The  complainant  and  his wife thinking about  to purchasing a flat for their residential purpose.  During that time he came across of an advertisement of the  Nest apartment constructed by SB Developers, which belongs to the Op’s.  As per the advertisement it was the  first residential building in Kerala registered for Green Building certification.  Attracted by the  advertisement the complainant contacted the OPs.  Believing the words of OP’s executives and attracted by the Green Building certification the complainant booked an apartment for him and his family.  Then an agreement was executed between the  complainant, his wife and 1^st OP on 26/5/2016 and paid an amount of  Rs.34,04,900/- towards construction  and the OP’s agreed to construct an apartment  No.10C on the  north western side of the 10^th floor in the building complex  known as “The  Nest”.  The sale agreement was executed on 23/5/2017.  As agreed the  registration of the building was done on 24/6/2017.  Then the complainant has fixed the house warming  ceremony  on 4/6/2017.  But the construction was not completed as agreed and the registration of the building was done on 24/6/2017, the painting work was not completed as per the  agreement.  The bed room walls have dampness and the coating is getting peeled off and the complainant spend  one lakh rupees for  repairing the inside of his apartment.  To cure the defect in the outer area the approximate cost will be 3 lakhs.  There is no light point fixed in the balcony even though it was stated in the agreement and it would cost Rs.5000/-, the bathroom ducts has left  open.  During rainy seasons the water will leak from top floor and it caused damages to the interior furniture in the apartment and it caused a loss of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.  The  OP’s promoted sale on the basis of 1% reduction on the registration charges, as it will be a green building, the complainant loss 1% discount on registration charges ie Rs.34,049/-.  The car basement parking area of the complainant has not been plastered and rough concrete corrugation  and  the plastering and painting will be Rs.8,00,000/- .  The children’s play area was not constructed as per the  schedule  B of the sale agreement.  The OP have not provided the amenities as offered  they are liable to  pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant.  The complainant was communicated to the OPs from time to time they have not done anything to redress the grievance of the complainant.  The act of  OPs, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

       After filing this complaint notice issued to both OPs.  After receiving the notice  both OPs entered before the commission  and filed their written version.   1^st OP  contended  that he filed a suit before the Munsiff court Kannur as OS.211/2019 in  IA NO.1598/2019 against the complainant and other residents.  So the complainant filed this complaint before the commission as the  counterblast to the suit in Munsiff court Kannur.  The complainant has not done maintenance work of the  flat for the last several years.  Moreover the complainant caused obstruction to the work done by the OP’s and non-completion of the work was caused several factors which were not in the control of the  OPs.  The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.3 lakhs for  curing defect of the construction, Rs. One lakh for painting, Rs.5000/- for electrical  cable and light assembly, Rs.5000/-  towards damage caused to the  furniture due to leakage of water, Rs.34,040/- for registration charges, Rs.3 lakhs for not arranging PWD water connection , Rs.50,000/-  as compensation for not providing fire demo exhibition, Rs. 3 lakhs for not providing amenities .  The complainant is  not entitled to get Rs.2 lakhs from the OPs on the ground of non-completion of construction work in time.  The amount of compensation claimed by the complainant under different  heads is not true and the  OPs are not liable to pay Rs.11,39,049/- to the complainant.  Moreover the  complainant purchased the  apartment on 23/5/2017, and the present complaint filed on  September 2020 ie, after  3 year and 3 months.  As per Sec.69 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 the  complaint is  to be filed within 2 years from the date of  cause of action.  So the claim is barred  and no relief can be granted.  So there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs and the  complaint is liable to be dismissed.

   During the pendency of the complaint the complainant has filed a IA petition before the commission to appoint  an expert  to inspect the premises and filed the report.  The petition  is allowed  by the commission and  one Mr.Prakasan K.K, Assistant Engineer(Rtd) LSGD, Govt. of Kerala was appointed as the expert commissioner and  inspected the premises of the complainant’s apartment in the presence of complainant and both OPs, and the expert filed the report with photographs before the  commission  and marked as Ext.C1.  The complainant  and OPs filed their objections to the commission report also.

      On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs1 and 2 and Exts. A1 to A6, Ext.C1 were marked. On OP’s side DW1 was examined . Both sides filed argument note also.

Issue No.1: 

         The  Complainant  adduced evidence before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.  The complainant was cross examined as PW1 by   OPs. On  complainant’s side  Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.C1 were marked on his part to substantiate his case.  In Ext.A1 is the sale agreement dtd.26/5/2016,  Ext.A2 is the sale deed  dtd.22/5/2017, Ext.A3 is the builders  agreement,  Ext.A4 is the E mail communications, Ext.A5 is the  brochure of OP, Ext.A6 is certificate of mortgage and Ext.C1 is the Expert commission report with photographs.  At the  time of cross-examination PW1 deposed that “ Expert  ബോധിപ്പിച്ച റിപ്പോർട്ടിനനുസരിച്ച് ഈ കേസ്സ് തീർപ്പ് കല്പിക്കാൻ എനിക്ക് സമ്മതമാണ്” As per the  perusal of  Ext.C1 the expert reported that (a)  പ്രസ്തുത അപ്പാര്ർട്ടുമെന്ർറിന്ർറെ  ഉൾവശവും , പുറംഭാഗവും മുഴുവനായും  plastic emulsion ആണ്  പൂശിയിരിക്കുന്നത്. എന്നാൽ സാധാരണ നിലയിൽ outer layer  painting  ചെയ്യുന്നതിന് മുമ്പായി apply ചെയ്യുന്നputty layer മതിയായ ഗുണമേന്മയില്ലാത്ത മെറ്റീരിയൽ ആണ് ഉപയോഗിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നത് എന്ന് സംശയിക്കുന്നു. അതിനാൽ ചുമരിലെ പല ഭാഗത്തും bubbles form ചെയ്യുന്നതായും , കൂടാതെ putty ഭിത്തിയിൽ നിന്നും പൊടിഞ്ഞ് വരുന്നതായും കാണുന്നു.(b) Balcony യിൽ light point wiring   ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്. Fixtures fix ചെയ്തതായി കാണുന്നില്ല. (c)Bathroomനോട്

ചേര്ർന്നു നില്ക്കുന്ന Duct ന്ർറെ finishing work(that is  putty finish  with emulsion paint) ചെയ്തതായി കാണുന്നില്ല. (d) 13^th floor ൽ നിന്നും common stair case ൽകൂടി മഴവെള്ളം ഒലിച്ചു വരുന്നതായി കാണുന്നു.  ആയത്      apartment അകത്ത് വരുന്നതിന് യാതൊരു സാധ്യതയുമില്ല.  എന്നാൽ പ്രസ്തുത സ്റ്റേയർ കേസ് കൂട്ടായ ഉപയോഗത്തിനുള്ളതാകയാൽ ആയത് യുക്തമായ രീതിയിൽ പരിഹരിക്കേണ്ടതുണ്ട്.(e) പ്രസ്തുത അപ്പാർട്ട്മെന്ർറിന് KWA connection ലഭ്യമാക്കിയതായി കാണുന്നില്ല.(f) Rain water harvesting സംവിധാനം യഥാവിധി നിർമ്മിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്.(g)  പ്രസ്തുത apartment ൽ intercom facility നൽകിയിട്ടില്ല.(h)Balcony ഭാഗത്തുള്ള duct door കേടായി കിടക്കുകയാണ്. The expert also attached the photos along with Ext.C1 report.  As per the Ext.C1 report clearly shows that the construction was defective.  

   On complainant’s side PW2  one Mr.Vinod examined and to prove that the expenses incurred to clear the for painting work .  In chief  affidavit as well as during  cross examination PW2 stated that for purchasing paint the complainant had to spent Rs.10,000/- and paid labour charge was Rs.11,400/-.  So the painting work the complainant had to  spent Rs.21,400/- which has to be paid by 1^st OP.  The rectification of other work like installation of new electrical cable and light assembly in balcony, duct work was not completed, intercom facility by the complainant was not given, rain water harvesting  not working,  not  arranging KWA connection etc.

   The complainant has miserably failed to prove 1% discount registration charges with document.  DW1 contended that  as per Ext.A2(sale deed) the complainant had purchased the flat on 23/5/2017 and the complainant filed the  complaint before the commission on  September 2020, ie, after 3 years and 3 months.  So the OP contended that as per Sec.69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 it is a time bared one.  The cause of action stated is 23/5/2017 the date of registration of the apartment.  But as per Ext.A4, E –mail communications between parties  shows that the cause of action arose  remained continuous.  Hence the complaint is not  time barred and there was no delay in filing the complaint. The act of  OPs, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. We hold that  there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops1&2.   Since 2^nd OP is the manager of the apartment.  He has no personal liability.  Hence 2^nd OP is exempted from the liability.  Hence the  issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3:

    As discussed above the complainant had purchased the flat only on believing the advertisement of 1^st residential building in Kerala registered for Green building certification.  The sale agreement executed on  23/5/2017.  Thereafter the registration was done on 24//6/2017.  But at the time of registration itself several defects noted in the construction and the complainant informed the matter to OP through e mail.  There is an expert commissioner  inspected and  report fled before the commission.  As per Ext.C1 report the  defects and damages in the building are noted.  The painting was not having the quality  and he incurred Rs.21,400/-, bath room duct work was not finished, intercom facility was not given, rain water harvesting  is not working , the KWA water  connection  was  also not  made available to the apartment.  So we hold that the 1^st OP is  directly bound  to  redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we hold that  the 1^st OP is liable to pay Rs. 21,400/- to the painting  work, Rs.5000/- as  installation of new electric  cable and light in the balcony, the damages caused to leakage of water , not arranging  PHD water connection, not providing fire demo exhibition, not  for providing  amenities and for curing the defects of apartment construction for a total amount of Rs.2,30,000/- is given to the  complainant along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. Thus issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered. 

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the   1^st opposite party  to pay total sum of Rs. 2,56,400/-( painting work, installation  of cable , light and all other works) to the complainant  towards the compensation for  rectifying the defective work as reported

 by the expert commissioner.  1^st opposite party is further directed to  pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and  Rs.10000/- as  cost  to the proceedings within  30 days of  receipt  of this order. In default the amount of Rs.2,56,400/- carries 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- Sale agreement dtd.26.5.2016

A2-Sale deed dt22/5/2017

A3- Builders agreement

A4-E mail communications

A5-Brochure of OP

A6- Certificate of  mortgage(marked with objection)

C1- Commission report

PW1-Sanjay Dinesh- complainant

PW2- P.Vinod-witness of PW1

DW1-Suresh Babu-1^st  OP

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR