SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.K. Jain, P.M and B.C. Gupta, Member
C.S. COMPANY AND OTHERS - Appellants
Versus
K. VENUGOPAL AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 107 of 2011 (Against the Order dated 19.05.2010 in Appeal No. 357 of 2008 of the State Commission Kerala).
Decided on : 20-10-2015

Advocates Appeared:
G. Prakash and Jishnu M.L., Advocates, G. Prakash and Jishnu M.L., Advocates and Manoj V. George and Shilpa M. George, Advocate, for the Respondent

Consumers have the right to seek compensation for defects in goods or services under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Headnote:

Consumer Dispute - Construction Agreement - 12(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - 31.04.1998 - 24.01.95 - 02.02.1998 - 31.08.2005 - 19.05.2010 - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically focusing on section 12(1)(g) which deals with the rights of consumers to seek compensation for defects in goods or services. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the construction agreement and the reports submitted by the Commissioners, emphasizing the consumer's entitlement to compensation for the deficiencies in the construction work.

Fact of the Case:

The complainants entered into a construction agreement with the OP construction company, alleging defects in the building constructed and seeking compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainants were entitled to compensation for the deficiencies in the construction work, based on the reports submitted by the Commissioners and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Issues: Dispute over compensation for construction defects, interpretation of the construction agreement, and the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainants were entitled to compensation for the deficiencies in the construction work as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the reports submitted by the Commissioners.

Final Decision: The court directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 2,23,911/- to the complainant along with interest and awarded costs as per the District Forum's order.

ORDER

B.C. Gupta, Member. - These two revision petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 19.05.2010, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 357/2008, vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order dated 31.04.1998, passed by the District Forum was modified.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants K. Venugopal and Susheela filed consumer complaint in question, saying that the first complainant K. Venugopal entered into an agreement on 24.01.95 with S. Jaganatha Prasad, the Managing Director of the OP construction company for constructing a building having 2035 sq. ft. of area @ Rs. 250/- per sq. ft. and the total cost of construction was stated to be Rs. 5,08,732.50ps. However, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 7,01,119/- for the said construction. After construction, the keys of the house were handed over to the complainant on 02.02.1998. It has been alleged that a number of defects were noticed by the complainants in the building so constructed. There was leakage in the rooms and dampness on the walls of the building, the timber provided by the complainants was not used in the construction, rather some low quality material was used. The complainant stated that they were entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 4.09 lakh from the OP as compensation.

3. The complaint was contested by the OPs by filing a written version before the District Forum in which they alleged that the scope of the work had increased and they were entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 3 lakh from the complainant for the said construction.

4. The District Forum vide their order dated 31.01.2001 directed to refund Rs. 60,000/- to the complainants with 12% interest from the date of complaint till realisation and also to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of proceedings. The order of the District Forum was based on the report of a Local Commissioner Mr. P.J. Kurian, appointed for the purpose. Both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission which were decided vide order dated 06.06.2002 of the State Commission and the matter was remanded to the District Forum with the direction to obtain further details from the Commissioner. It was found that the former commissioner was no more and hence, a new commissioner was appointed. The said Commissioner Geetha S. Nair, filed two reports before the District Forum, one in July 2003 and the other on 22.03.2005, in which she stated that a sum of Rs. 1,82,069/- on 11 different items was required for the maintenance/repairs of the said building. These items included the dismantling of the damaged doors and windows and fittings with new ones, floor maintenance of roof slabs, rectification of electrical work, rectification of dampness, plastering etc. Based on the report of the new commissioner, the District Forum passed an order on 31.08.2005, as per which, a sum of Rs. 2,36,277.30ps. was directed to be paid by the OPs to the complainant along-with interest @6% p.a. This included a sum of Rs. 1,82,069/- as per report of the Commissioner and a sum of Rs. 54,208.30ps. as the return of the excess payment made by the complainant to the OPs. Being aggrieved against this order, the OPs filed an appeal before the State Commission which was decided vide order dated 19.05.2010. The appeal was partly allowed and the OPs were directed to pay Rs. 1,53,465/- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint to the complainants. The State Commission while passing this order, allowed compensation only on 2 items out of the 11 items stated in the report of the Commissioner. They stated that a sum of Rs. 60,323/- was for dismantling of doors and windows and fitting new ones and Rs. 51,300/- was payable for floor maintenance of roof slab. Further, out of the excess payment of Rs. 54,208.30 made to the OPs, a sum of Rs. 12,366/- was payable to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top