KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 570/2009

JUDGMENT DATED: 23.1.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT

Golden Heights Owners Association            :APPELLANT

Rep by its President, CC 37/774,

Golden Heights Apartments,

Ground Floor, Blossom-Cochin Road

Elamkulam P.O.,Kochi.

 (By Adv.Febin J.Velukaran)

       Vs.

1. M/s Vichus Constructions (P) Ltd.,            : RESPONDENTS

    Rep.by its Managing Director,

   K.V.Jose, 3^rd Floor, CRH Complex,

   Shenoys Junction. M.G.Road, Cochin.

2. M/S K.P Varkey & V.S.Builders,

    Rep.by its Manaigng Director,

    K.V.Jose, 3^rd Floor, CRH complex,

    Shenoys Junction,

    M.G.Road, Cochin.

3. K.V.Jose,

    S/o K.P. Varkey,

    Managing Director,

    M/s Vichus Constructions &

    M/S K.P Varkey & V.S.Builders

    3^rd Floor, CRH Complex,

    Shenoys Junction. M.G.Road, Cochin.

4. K.V.Peter, S/o K.P.Varkey,

    Director, M/s Vichus Constructions &

    M/S K.P Varkey & V.S.Builders

    3^rd Floor, CRH Complex,

   Shenoys Junction. M.G.Road, Cochin.

5. V.U.Siddique,

     S/o Ummer, Director,

     M/s Vichus Constructions

     3^rd Floor, CRH Complex,

      Shenoys Junction. M.G.Road, Cochin

(By Adv.George Cherian Karippaparambil & S.Reghukumar)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the complainant in CC.348/08   in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The appellant/complainant has sought for setting aside the order of the Forum.  The Forum has set  aside the report of the expert Commissioner on the ground that no proper notice was served on the opposite parties before inspection vide order in I.A.290/09.  The matter is with respect to the defects and deficiencies in the construction etc. of a multi storied apartment building.  The Forum has pointed out that it is only just one hour prior to the inspection that notice was served to the opposite parties.  Hence opposite parties were not present at the time of inspection.  The Forum has observed that the same Commissioner cannot again be deputed to the spot as he would not be in position to approach the  matter with an open mind because he has already taken a decision in the issue.

2. We find that as per the report of the commissioner he inspected the building on 5.5.09 and 7.5.09.  The opposite parties have pointed out that the notice of inspection on 7.5.09 was not at all served on the opposite parties. It is submitted by the counsel for the complainant that on 7.5.09 the Commissioner just went to the office of the complainant’s association situated in the building to verify the site plan and structural plan and that the inspection was done only on 5.5.09.  Whatever be the same it can be alleged that  sufficient  time was not given to the opposite parties to reach the spot although it was submitted that the premises is just 1KM away from the office of the opposite parties.  It has also to be noted that the opposite parties are builders having offices and considerable staff.  The apartment building is a 12 storied structure.

3. We find that the Forum has not pointed out any inaccuracies as such in the report of the Commissioner necessitating setting aside of the same.  We find it could be sufficient  to remit the report to the same Commissioner so that the suggestions of the opposite parties also can be considered by the Commissioner.

4. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside.  The Forum is directed to remit the report to the same Commissioner.  Sufficient notice will be given to both sides before inspection.  The parties are at liberty to file work memos and the points raised in the work memos shall be considered by the commissioner and reported.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

The case stands posted before the Forum on 18.3.2010.

Office is directed to forward the copy of this order as well as LCR to the Forum urgently.

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT

ps