- (1.)These appeals arise from the order in O. P.1055/1998 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam. Appeal 203/2001 is by the complainant in the said O. P. and Appeal 195/2001 is by the first opposite party in the said O. P. As both the appeals arise from the same order the same are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.)Complainants' case before the District Forum was that themselves entered into Exbt. A1 agreement with the third opposite party on 24.1.1995 for the construction of their residential house, opposite parties agreed to construct the house at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. ft. , the total plinth area was 2034.53 sq. ft. and the total costs assessed was Rs.5,08,732.50. The 3rd opposite party handed over the house after construction on 2.2.1998, the house had defects, the work was incomplete, the mosaic works, electrification and sanitary fittings were not complete and hence complainant had to complete the said work, the house warming ceremony was conducted on 19.4.1998. Complainant had provided teak tree and anjili tree for construction of doors and windows. A total amount of Rs.7,01,119/- was paid to the 3rd opposite party. Thus the 3rd opposite party collected excess charge from the complainant, the wood material used were of inferior quality and the whole wood given by the complainant was not used, the construction itself was not as agreed. As the opposite parties violated the terms of agreement, complainant claimed he is entitled to direction for its redressal. Complainant maintained opposite parties received an excess amount of Rs.11,354/-, the works concerning the septic tank, bathroom, electrification work, plumbing and sanitary works were attended by the complainant. Inspite of that opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.15,208/- for which the complainant is not liable.
(3.)In the version by the opposite parties they maintained that the complainants are not consumers and the suit is barred by limitation. Since the complainants did not pay the amount in time the work could not progress as desired; due to the delay in payment the opposite party was put to loss and contended the case as regards the deficiency alleged by the complainant is not true or correct. In one of the bed rooms the wardrobes, and ventilators were not provided as per the instruction by the complainant as they wanted to fix AC. Opposite parties are not aware of the alleged leak in the roof which they learnt only when notice was received. The work of staircase would is additional work since the same was outside the plinth area. They wanted dismissal of the complaint. Before the District Forum the first complainant was examined as P. W.1, second complainant as P. W.2, and another witness was examined as P. W.3. Complainant produced Exbts. A1 to A16 and on the side of the opposite parties Exbts. B1 to B14 were produced and Exbts. D. W.1 to D. W.7 were examined. D. W.3 is the 3rd opposite party. An Expert Commissioner, C. W.1 was issued, he filed Exbts. C1 and C1 (a) report and plan. On a consideration of the said material the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs.60,000/- with 12% interest from the date of the complaint till payment. They were also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.