IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 28th day of September, 2017
Filed on 10.03.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.75/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
- Sri. Francis Joseph 1 Sri. P.K. Prasad@Unni
S/o P.V.Joseph S/o Krishnan
Parathara, Punnamada Arayasseril Veedu
Avalookkunnu.P.O Muhamma.P.O, Kaippuram
Alappuzha – 688 006 Pin 688 525
(Impleaded IA.No 64/2016
2. Alees W/o Francis Joseph(Late)
Parathara, Avalookkunnu.P.O.
3. Sanjeo Christopher, Parathara
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party for doing maintenance work of his house. On 14/12/2014 opposite party completed the construction work and complainant paid full amount as per the agreement. But due to the defect and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party cracks occurred on the main wall of the house of the complainant. Opposite party used low quality electric items for doing electric work and that caused much financial loss to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The averment to the effect that the complainant paid the entire amount due to the opposite party as per the said agreement is absolutely false and hence denied. The complainant still owe the opposite party an amount of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty thousand only) for the work done by him for renovating the house of the complainant. The opposite party had not done any work on the said portion of the wall nor such a work find any mention in the agreement. The complainant himself and purchased the electrical items of his own choice and the purchase amount was deducted from the amount to be paid to the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to seek any relief from the Forum.
3. During the trail stage complainant died and hence his legal heirs were impleaded as additional complainant 2 and 3. The additional 2nd complainant is the wife of the deceased complainant. She was examined as PW1; documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A5. Ext.A3 and Ext.A5 series were marked subject to objection. Expert commissioner was examined as CW1 and Expert commissioner report produced marked as Ext.C1. Opposite party was examined as RW1.
4. Points for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant and opposite party entered into an agreement for doing maintenance work of the complainant house. Ext.A1 is the agreement dtd. 31/7/2014. As per the agreement the complainant has to give Rs. 3,50,000/- to the opposite party. According to the complainant he has paid full amount to the opposite party. In order to prove that he has produced receipt issued by the opposite party and his bank account statement which marked as Ext.A2 and Ext.A3. According to the opposite party he has to get Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant. While cross examing the opposite party he deposed that he has to get Rs. 90.000/- from the complainant. It is pertinent to see that so far opposite party has not taken any legal action or not even sent a demand notice against the complainant for the said amount. Hence claim of the opposite party that he has to get back an amount from the complainant is not seen as true. According to the complainant the building constructed by the opposite party has so many cracks in the wall. The expert commissioner was appointed at the instance of complainant. The Expert commission report is marked as Ext.C1. The main allegation of the complainant is that due to the improper construction there are cracks in the main wall in south of his house. The Expert commissioner also noted that “the junction in which the new wall joins the existing old wall, there is a crack of nearly 1 cm width”. To the question whether the complainant’s building is repairable, the cost of repair and is there any guarantee for the building to last long, the Expert commissioner stated that the soil on which the building situated is weak in nature and the building has problems due to uneven settlement which cannot be corrected, the minor cracks in the building is due to this, it is not possible to predict the life of such a building. However the defect of the work done by the contractor can be rectified and the cost of rectification is worked out in Appendix C. it comes to Rs. 47,324.27/-. According to the complainant the electrical items used for electrification is in poor quality. While cross examing Expert commissioner he stated that he has not ascertained the quality of the wiring material. Hence the allegation about the materials used for the electrification is not proved. In the light of above discussion we are of considered opinion that building constructed by the opposite party has defect and that amounts to defect and deficiency in service.
In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to rectify the defects in the wall of the house on free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainants within 30 days from the date of order. Failing which opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me an pronounced
in open Forum on this the 28th day of September, 2017.
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Sri.Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Aeleice Francis(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Agreement
Ext.A2 - Payment Receipt
Ext.A3 - Bank Statement
Ext.A4. - Estimate
Ext.A5 - Photograph
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - P.K.Prasad(Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
