State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gopalakrishnan vs Manoj on 27 February, 2017
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL .678/12 & APPEAL.656/12 JUDGMENT DATED:27.02.207 PRESENT : JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT SHRI.V.V JOSE : MEMBER
APPEAL .678/12 Manoj, S/o Parameswaran Nair, Cholayil House, Edakkurussi Kunnu, Siruvani Junction, Karimba P.O, : APPELLANT Mannarkkad, Palakkad, PIN-678 597.
(By Adv: Sri. K.S. Vivek)
Vs.
Gopalakrishnan, S/o Vasudevan,
Pullayil Veedu, Edakkurussi Kunnu,
Siruvani Junction, Karimba P.O, : RESPONDENT
Mannarkkad, Palakkad,
PIN-678 597.
(By Adv: Sri. Dhananjayan)
APPEAL .656/12
Gopalakrishnan, S/o Vasudevan,
Pullayil Veedu, Edakkurussi Kunnu,
Siruvani Junction, Karimba P.O, : APPELLANT
Mannarkkad, Palakkad,
PIN-678 597.
(By Adv: Sri. Dhananjayan)
Vs.
Manoj, S/o Parameswaran Nair,
Cholayil House, Edakkurussi Kunnu,
Siruvani Junction, Karimba P.O, : RESPONDENT
Mannarkkad, Palakkad,
PIN-678 597.
(By Adv: Sri. K.S. Vivek)
COMMON JUDGMENT
HON. JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT
Both these appeals arise out of the order in CC.139/10 dated, June19, 2012 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. Appeal No.656/12 is filed by the opposite party while A.678/12 is filed by the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-
Complainant is working as a cable TV operator. He entrusted the construction of the work of his house with the opposite party for a total amount of Rs.10,80,000/- and paid in advance of Rs.75,000/-. An agreement was entered into between the parties on June 12, 2009. As the work of the house progressed, complainant paid Rs.6,20,000/- in several instalments. Till now the work is not completed. Instead of using good laterite stone the opposite party used low quality laterite stone. Three meter height was not provided for the wall as agreed. No sunshade was provided on the left side. The sunshade on the other side is not in sloping position. Roof is also not in sloping position as agreed. Opposite party used very low quality sand and wood for the construction. There was deviation from the approved plan. As a result of which complainant was forced to purchase half a cent of property on the western side as the water from the roof started falling on this property. On assessment by the expert the work done by the opposite party amounts to Rs.4,50,000/-. Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming Rs.4,70,000/- as compensation with interest and cost.
3. Opposite party in his version contended thus before the Forum:
Receipt of Rs.6,20,000/- from the complainant is admitted. Opposite parties spent about Rs.9,00,000/- for the construction. Complainant has to pay the balance amount for which he filed OS.416/10 before the Sub Court. It is to escape from that liability complainant filed this complaint.
4. Both parties filed proof affidavits and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties before the Forum. The reports of the commissioner were marked as Ext.C1 and C2 and the Commissioner was examined as CW1. Forum on an appreciation of evidence found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as cost. Opposite party has filed Appeal.656/12 challenging the said order of the Forum. Complainant on the other hand filed Appeal.678/12 contending that compensation awarded by the Forum is too low.
5. Heard both the counsels.
6. The following points arise for consideration:-
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
Whether the compensation awarded by the Forum is adequate?
Whether the impugned order of the can be sustained?
7. Entrustment of the construction work of the house of complainant as per agreement, Ext.A1 dated, December 6, 2009 is admitted. Total amount agreed was Rs.10,80,000/- out of which complainant paid Rs.6,20,000/-. Allegation of the complainant is that there are some defects in the construction and to correct the said defects Rs.4,70,000/- is necessary and the opposite party should be directed to pay that amount. Opposite party denied the allegations and contended that he has spent about Rs.9,00,000/- for the construction work and when he filed OS.416/10 before the Sub Court for recovery of the amount complainant filed this complaint.
8. Therefore the first point to be considered is whether there is any defect in the construction of the house. Ext.C1 is the report of the commissioner dated, April 20, 2011. Thereafter commissioner filed detailed report Ext.C2 on January 6, 2012. In Ext.C1 commissioner has reported that the nature of the work seems to satisfy standards for ordinary building construction. In Ext.C2 he has reported that the materials used also satisfy standards in visual examination and the quality of sand and wood are also not bad. As CW1 he also stated that there are minute deviations in the construction work against the approved plan. In Ext.C2 he has reported that instead of sloping roof flat roof is provided with no roof projection on the eastern side. Thus the quality of the construction is not bad. But there is some deviation from the approved plan. That being so it has to be treated as deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. But at the same time the total amount of the work assessed by the commissioner is about Rs.8,00,000/-. But the complainant paid only Rs.6,20,000/-. Taking into account the above aspect Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.3000/- which appears reasonable. In the light of the above findings both the appeals have to be dismissed.
In the result both the appeals are dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT V.V JOSE : MEMBER VL.