By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party to get compensation for the defective construction of the house of the Complainant.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant entrusted the work of house construction to the Opposite Party. The work consists of masontry work of wall plastering, roof slab and the work of fitting doors and windows and an agreement was executed in that respect with the Opposite Party on 16.03.2006. Rs.50,000/- was given to the Opposite Party at the time of executing the agreement on the very date of oral agreement in respect of construction that was on 15.03.2006 the Opposite Party received Rs.3,000/- as advance. The Opposite Party had to do the building work. The materials necessary for the construction as such bricks cement stone and other things which are necessary for construction are to be purchased by the Opposite Party. The built up wall and roof were not having up to the level of quality. Instead of the liable amount Rs.97,000/-. The Opposite Party received from the Complainant Rs.1,07,000/- and in addition to that amount for the further work of doors and windows the Opposite Party also received Rs.15,000/-. Even after the excess payment the Opposite Party had not completed the work. The plastering of the wall is caused heavy loss to the Complainant because the surface of the wall was uneven. The Complainant had to spent an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- consequent of the untalented construction. The doors and windows were not finished the complainant had to spent an additional amount of Rs.20,000/-. The Opposite Party is liable to compensate the Complainant Rs.90,000/- as compensation and cost along with interest. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to compensate the Complainant with Rs.90,000/- for unskilled and defective work of house construction along with interest at the rate of 6%.
3. The Opposite Parties filed version in short it is as follows:- The Opposite Party admitted the terms and conditions agreed with the Complainant as avered in the agreement as per the terms and conditions of agreement. The Opposite Party did the work of doors and windows and its shutters. But this extra works are not mentioned in the agreement. The Complainant agreed to pay Rs.40,000/- for this additional work how ever Rs.25,000/- are yet to be paid by the Complainant. The building up of wall and roof works were not in 'finishing ' are bogus allegations. The Opposite Party has not taken the materials as such bricks and material from the site. The work of the Opposite Party cannot be estimated to Rs.1,00,000/- as a contractor this Opposite Party has no intention to cheat the Complainant. The foundation work was done by an another contractor and that contractor was forced to give back the received amount consequent to a Police complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
4. The complaint was partly allowed on 08.01.2008 and the Opposite Party was exparte at that time. It was remanded back by the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for the disposal in merit vide the appeal No. 31/09 dated 08.01.2010.
5. Points in consideration are:-
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
Relief and cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Party. The Complainant and her witness are examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively, the Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. Ext.A1 is the only document considered in this case.
7. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party agreed to construct the house as per the terms avered in the agreement Ext.A1. This document shows that the construction of the Complainants house was agreed to be completed before 28.05.2006. The amount received by the Opposite Party is to be endorsed in the reverse page of the agreement. The payment received by the Opposite Party except Rs.15,000/- paid on 18.06.2006 are admitted by the Opposite Party. The Complainant herself admitted that Rs.15,000/- is given by her and it is entered in the agreement.
8. The dispute in issue is in respect of the building constructed by the Opposite Party. It is evidenced from witnesses that the defects in construction cannot be brought out in this stage because the defects were patched up by an additional work of the Complainant. The witness examined for the Complainant PW2 cannot be relied on it is deposed by him that he is a neighbour of the Complainant. The relief sought by the Complainant is to compensate the defects in construction of the house but no evidence is brought out to establish the case of the Complainant. According to the Complainant the Opposite Party received Rs.1,75,000/- including the payment on 19.04.2006 of Rs.15,000/-. In addition to that for the purchase of purchase of wooden planks Rs.15,000/- was also received by the Opposite Party. The matter that to be decided is whether the Opposite Parties construction work amount to defective service. It is admitted by the Complainant herself that the defects in construction including the masontry work are patched up by other workers. We are in the opinion that the Complainant failed to prove the case bringing forth sufficient and cogent evidence to substantiate the contention.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 28th July 2011.
Date of filing:25.08.2007.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True copy/ Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witnesses for the Complainant:
PW1. Vilasini. Complainant.
PW2. Sundar Maison
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. V. Madhusoodanan. Building Work.
Exhibit for the Complainant:
A1. Agreement. dt:16.03.2006.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
