House Contractor Liable For Incomplete Construction, Sub-Standard Work: Kerala Consumer Commission Awards ₹1.1L Compensation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently passed an award granting a compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- to a complainant since the constructor engaged by him for building his house abandoned work midway and failed to complete construction even after receiving substantial payment of more than 9 lakhs.According to the complainant, he engaged the opposite party to...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently passed an award granting a compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- to a complainant since the constructor engaged by him for building his house abandoned work midway and failed to complete construction even after receiving substantial payment of more than 9 lakhs.
According to the complainant, he engaged the opposite party to construct two houses and even though work was started and substantial payment was made, the latter abandoned the work midway without any reason.
The complainant also alleged that the opposite party constructor used substandard materials and that there were several workmanship defects, which he had to correct by engaging other workers at an additional expense of Rs. 2 lakhs.
He initially instituted a suit against the opposite party seeking an injunction and the Court had then appointed a Commissioner to inspect the site. The Commissioner's report had noted that construction of the houses were only done halfway and, there were unfinished walls, unfitted doors and window and an incomplete ground-floor parking area. The report further made a mention of hardened cement bags as well as non-presence of workers or ongoing construction activity.
The complainant stated that he had to avail a loan for the project and is continuing to pay the monthly installments. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 8.55 lakhs from the opposite party.
The opposite party resisted the claim and contended that it never received the amount stated to have been paid but merely half of the daily labour charges. It was also argued that there was no defective or negligent work done.
Opposite party rather sought a sum of ₹16,12,640 for the construction which the complainant allegedly obstructed and filed the suit.
The Commission however noted that the opposite party failed to adduce any evidence in this regard even though repeated opportunities were given and so, the Commission closed the opposite party's evidence.
It ruled that the complainant was a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and that a contractor rendering construction services for consideration was a 'service provider'.
It observed that the complainant's allegations were supported by the documentary evidence produced, including the Commissioner's report whereas the opposite party's version remains unproved.
The Bench of D.B. Binu, V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. held:
“Abandonment of construction work after receiving substantial payment constitutes clear deficiency in service. Failure to complete the construction within the agreed period is an actionable deficiency. Likewise, the use of sub-standard materials and poor workmanship amounts to negligence.”
The Commission thus granted Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs. 10,000 as costs of the proceedings.
Case No: CC No. 353 of 2018
Case Title: Ouseph George Karumathi v. Shijo Yohannan
Counsel for the complainant: Surya J.
Counsel for the opposite party: Lola Issac Perumbavoor