The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to a complaint regarding the construction of a commercial building, and the determination of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

ORDER

M.V. Viswanathan, Judicial Member - Complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows:

On 22.3.1997, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party, Abdul Rehman for the purpose of constructing a commercial building and thereby the complainant availed the service of the 1st opposite party for construction of a commercial building. An agreement for construction of the building was entered into between the complainant and the 1st opposite party on 22.3.1997. As per the terms of the said agreement, construction of the building was to be completed within a period of 12 months. Time was an essence of the said agreement. The plinth area of the said building was 12185 sq.ft. and that the 1st opposite party agreed to construct the said building at the rate of Rs. 287 per sq.ft. An advance amount of Rs. 5 lakh was paid to the 1st opposite party on 22.3.1997 and the balance amount was to be paid in instalments as the work progresses. The 1st opposite party did not complete construction of the building as agreed. Construction of the building could not be completed due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Thereafter at the request of the 1st opposite party, the 2nd opposite party, Ibrahim was also made a party to the agreement. The 2nd opposite party is the brother of the 1st opposite party. On additional/supplemental agreement was also executed between the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2. The said agreement was executed on 13.7.1998. In the modified agreement it was admitted that the construction could not be completed due to the fault of the 1st opposite party. The negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party has been admitted in the said modified agreement. As per the terms of the modified agreement, the 2nd opposite party was also made responsible for construction work along with the 1st opposite party. Time was made an essence of the said contract and the construction was to be completed by 11.7.1999. The 2nd opposite party was made responsible for the advance amount accepted by the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties commenced the construction work and they accepted a total of Rs. 15,66,542.50 by way of 12 instalments. They also acknowledged receipt of the said amount. But the opposite parties failed to complete the construction of the building on or before 11.7.1999. They could not even complete 25% of the construction work and that the opposite parties abandoned the work. The opposite parties have done the work in an unscientific manner. On examination of the work it could be understood that the work was done in an unscientific manner and the strength of the structure was weak. The opposite parties used poor quality materials for the construction work. Shortage of cement in mortar was also caused cracks, shrinkage etc. The floor and roof slabs are also seen leaking at several places. The value of construction so far done is estimated to be Rs. 7 lakh only. As the present structure is weak, further construction is possible only if the present structure is strengthened. The cost of strengthening the present structure would come to Rs. 3 lakh. The failure of the opposite parties to construct the building properly and to complete the construction within the agreed time amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part. The cost of building materials, labour charges, etc. have been escalated. The complainant will have to spend additional amount to complete the construction by incurring substantial amount. Therefore the complainant claimed refund of the excess amount of Rs. 8,66,542.50 collected by the opposite parties with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 11.7.1999 till the date of realization. The complainant has also claimed Rs. 3 lakh for strengthening the existing structure with compensation of Rs. 2 lakh towards the escalation of cost of materials and labour ch