MANOJ KUMAR Vs. MARIAMMA KURIEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal, under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by a Builder, engaged in the business of civil construction, particularly in the villas and residential houses, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the order dated 31.12.2013, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. 04/11. By the impugned order, while partly allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, the State Commission has directed the Appellant to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 9,01,362/- towards the cost of work, to be executed, besides paying Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs of the proceedings. The said directions were to be complied within a period of two months, failing which the entire amount was directed to carry interest @ 10% from the date of the order till realization.

(2.) On 002009, the Complainant had entered into an agreement with the Appellant for construction of a residential house on her property situated in Enadimangalam Village in Adoor Taluk, as per the approved plan, specifications and other details, attached with the agreement. As agreed between the parties, the construction was to be completed within nine months from the date of the agreement, against a total cost of Rs. 32,50,000/-, which was to be paid in accordance with the payment schedule attached with the said agreement. Despite having received a huge amount of Rs. 30,43,500/-, the Appellant failed to complete the construction work within the stipulated period and according to the specifications given in the approved plan. The said work was delayed by the Appellant on one pretext or the other. Due to several reasons, including low quality of material used and bad workmanship etc., certain portion of the building constructed was found to be not fit for human habitation and the Complainant was left with no option except to dismantle the same and reconstruct building. The legal notice, got issued by the Complainant, did not evoke any response from the Appellant. The teak and other wood provided by the Complainant to the Appellant for being used in the building was also damaged because the carpentry work was not done within a reasonable time with proper care. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in not completing the construction work within the stipulated period, despite having received a huge amount of Rs. 30,43,500/-, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the State Commission. The Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Appellant to refund to her the said amount with interest @ 18% p.a., besides paying Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages for the loss of valuable wood and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation.

(3.) On analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, including the Written Version filed on behalf of the Appellant, the State Commission found force in the submission of the Complainant and consequently, as noted above, while partly allowing the Complaint, issued the afore-noted directions to the Appellant. Hence, the present Appeal.