- (1.) THE complaint is filed by the complainant alleging that the building put up by the opposite party had developed cracks and that the ceiling plaster peeled off in many places exposing iron rods. There are deep cracks on the dividing walls and at the joining point of the wall. Water seepage is noticed in all the rooms. The over -head tank is leaking. The R.C. terraced building is leaking. A reputed Engineer who was brought in by the complainant estimated the cost of repair at Rs. 1,95,000. Therefore, the complaint is laid claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,95,000 towards repair charges and Rs. 2,00,000 for mental agony, hardship, sufferings and deficiency in service.
(2.) THE opposite party in his version stated that the building was handed over in May 1985 and the Engineer examined the condition of the building and the construction process. A report was also given by Architects. A completion certificate as also issued. Though the building was completed in May 1985 certain additional constructions were asked to be done. The entire construction was satisfactorily completed in July 1985. While so, the opposite party filed a suit against the complainant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,07,668.15 and obtained a decree. The opposite party has filed an appeal against the same though he got a decree for Rs. 1,61,299. The complainant has not filed any cross appeal. From the year 1985, there was no complaint at all for the first time, they have come forward with the case of crack and seepage in the year 1992. The complaint is mala fide and it is not maintainable. The opposite party, therefore, prays that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
(3.) THE complaint was actually presented in Court on 13.1.1993. From the records produced by the opposite party, we find that the construction was completed in the year 1985 itself. In fact, in the plaint filed by the opposite party in O.S. No. 316/1988 before the Sub -court, Coimbatore, which is marked as Ex. B1, he has stated that the building was handed over to the 1st defendant/Women s Voluntary Services and was inaugurated in May 1985. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant/Women s Voluntary Services which is marked as Ex. B2, it is admitted that there was a Hostel Building Committee till the building was completed. The allegation of the plaintiff/S.A. Dass that the building was completed in 1985 was not at all challenged. They have only stated that the plaintiff has failed to construct the building in accordance with specifications and that it has developed cracks in the walls and that the ceiling plaster peeled off in many places exposing iron rods. The overhead tank is leaking. The suit was decreed on 5.3.1990. Ex. B3 is the completion certificate which is dated 20.7.1985 stating that the building has been completed by the contractor as per tender specifications and the building is fit for occupation. Thus, we find that the complainant s contention about deficiency cannot be accepted at all because they have not chosen to come to the Forum immediately after taking possession of the building. There are no reason as to why they should wait till 1993 to file the complaint. Though they have taken a stand in the suit that there were defects in the building such a case was not accepted and the suit was decreed. Therefore, it is to be pointed out that the complainant has not asked for appointment of Commissioner now to inspect the property and note the defects. Therefore, in such circumstances and in this background if it is considered, it will follow that the contention of the complainant that there is deficiency in service cannot be accepted at all. The conduct of the complainant that the fact that a case was filed and was pending and the complainant never choose to allege about deficiency all these would go to show that the complaint is an afterthought.;