Court upheld the lower forum's findings of service deficiency and justified compensation due to incomplete and defective work.

1. The opposite party in C.C. No. 381/2013 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (in short the District Forum) has filed the appeal against the order passed by the District Forum by which he was directed to refund an amount of Rs. 5,85,709 with interest @12% per annum from 14.11.2012 till realisation, to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as costs to the complainant. He was also directed to dismantle the work done by him with costs without making any damage to the present building after making the above payment.

2. The averments contained in the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant had entrusted the truss work along with the other structural works of his newly constructed residential building with the opposite party. The opposite party agreed to do the work for an amount of Rs. 5,72,135. He had also agreed to complete the work by 15.11.2012. By way of payments made on different occasions, the opposite party received an amount of Rs. 5,85,709 / from the complainant. But the opposite party did not complete the work within the time stipulated in the agreement. He had issued a final bill on 22.11.2012 for an amount of Rs. 6,55,435. There are several defects to the constructions made by the opposite party (the defects are stated as A to O in the complaint). Even after repeated requests the opposite party did not agree to complete the work and to rectify the defects. So the wife of the complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party before the Station House Officer, Kalamassery and they directed the opposite party to rectify the defects. The opposite party did some work but he did not complete the work as undertaken. Again the wife of the complainant filed complaint before the Station House Officer, Kalamassery but they have not taken any action. So the complainant filed the complaint.

3. The opposite party appeared before the Lower Forum. But he has filed the version muchbeyond the statutory period of forty five days. Hence the version was not accepted.

4. On the side of the complainant PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A9were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party and Exhibits B1 to B4 were marked on his side.

5. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties the District Forum passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum the opposite party has preferred the present appeal.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

7. The parties are referred according to their rank / status in the complaint.

8. There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant had entrusted the truss work along with the other structural works of his newly constructed building with the opposite party and he agreed to do the work for an amount of Rs. 5,72,135, evidenced by Exhibit A3. He agreed to complete the work by 15.11.2012. By way of different occasions the opposite party received an amount of Rs. 5,85,709, evidenced by the endorsements made on the back side of Exhibits A3. It is alleged by the complainant that the agreed works were not completed by the opposite party within the stipulated period and there were several material defects to the works done by him. The opposite party had issued Exhibit A4 final bill on 21.11.2012 for an amount of Rs. 6,55,415. But the complainant has not paid the amount demanded by the opposite party in excess of the amount agreed between the parties for the work. It is stated by the complainant that since the opposite party did not respond to the requests made by him, his wife filed Exhibit A6 complaint before the Station House Officer, Kalamassery Police Station and as per their direction