Kerala

Idukki

CC/80/2019

Aliyar kunju Pareethu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yakoob - Opp.Party(s)

26 Dec 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 24.4.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26^th day of December, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.80/2019

Between

Complainant : Aliyarkunju, S/o. Pareethu,

Marottickal House,

Chenkulam P.O.,

Kunchithanny, Idukki.

(By Adv: C.K. Babu)

And

Opposite Parties : Yakkob,

Kallarackal House,

Chithirapuram P.O.,

Pallivasal, Idukki.

(By Adv: Biju Vasudevan)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that, the complainant entrusted his building construction to the opposite party and for that purpose, complainant and opposite party created an agreement on 21.1.2019. As per the agreement, opposite party agreed to construct the house of the complainant. But opposite party failed to perform his work as per the agreement. The roof concrete is defective and having cracks and water leakage. Instead of constructing the inner walls with 6” bricks, opposite party used 4” bricks. In their work, opposite party realised an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from the complainant. As per the agreement, complainant is bound to give only Rs.85000/- as balance payment to the opposite party. Hence alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite party to finish the construction work of the building by curing all the defects or else direct the opposite party to pay compensation and cost.

 

Along with the complaint, complainant filed an interim application to appoint an expert in this field to assess the defects of the construction and

(cont....2)

- 2 -

file a report to that effect. After hearing, the interim application allowed and the Jacob John, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Building Sub Division, Munnar was appointed as expert commissioner.

 

Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed vakalath. Evenafter sufficient time is given for filing reply version, opposite party failed to do so. Hence opposite party set exparte and complainant's evidence taken.

 

Complainant was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P3 and C1 commission report are marked. Ext.P1 is the agreement between the complainant and opposite party dated 21.1.2019. Ext.P2 is another agreement between the complainant and opposite party dated 10.11.2019. Ext.P3 is the copy of passbook of the complainant.

 

Heard.

 

The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsel for the complainant and had gone through the evidence. On perusing the details, it is found that opposite party agreed to perform the terms of the agreement, but he failed to do so. No contrary evidence is produced by the opposite party to shaken the allegation levelled against him by the complainant. At the same time, on going through Ext.P2 agreement dated 10.11.2019, it is seen that after the knowledge of the case and after filing vakalath in this case, complainant and opposite party executed the agreement. As per the agreement, 2^nd opposite party admitted the defect in the construction of the building and opposite party further agreed the cracks which is seen in the roof concrete slabs are cured with the help of experts. In this agreement, complainant agreed that he will pay the balance amount and withdraw the pending case only after fully satisfying that the work done by the oppsoite party as per the 2^nd agreement. But it is seen that as per the second agreement, the work done by the opposite party is not at all satisying with the complainant.

(cont....3)

- 3 -

Hence the Forum is of a considered view that the complaint can be decided on the light of the Ext.P2 second agreement.

 

In this case, the second agreement was executed on 10.11.2019 and the complainant adduced evidence on 11.12.2019.

 

From the evidence, it is seen that complainant is not satisfied with the work of the opposite party or the opposite party is failed to cure the defect of the building, which is the subject matter of this case, to the satisfaction of the complainant.

 

Hence the complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to cure the defect of the building to the satisfaction of the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of December, 2019

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P, MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(cont....3)

 

- 3 -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - P. Aliyarkunju.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - agreement between the complainant and opposite party

dated 21.1.2019.

Ext.P2 - another agreement between the complainant and opposite party

dated 10.11.2019.

Ext.P3 - copy of passbook of the complainant.

Ext.C1 - Commission report.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT