STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/78/2016 V K SREELATHA PRESENT ADDRESS - T C 29/1124 DNRA 4 PALKULANGARA PETTAH PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,KERALA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus JOHN P J PRESENT ADDRESS - BADHEL HOUSE T C 3/600 2 T K D ROAD MUTTADA PO KOWDIAR VILLAGEE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,KERALA.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

NEMO FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NEMO DATED: 13/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C.No.78/2016 JUDGEMENT DATED : 13.06.2025 PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. : MEMBER RADHAKRISHNAN COMPLAINANT:

V.K. Sreelatha, W/o S. Mohan Kumar, T.C.29/1124, DNRA 4, Palkulangara, Pettah P.O., Thiruvananthapuram (by Adv. A.G. Girish Kumar)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY:

John P.J., S/o Paul Dasan, Badhel House, T.C.3/600(2), T.K.D. Road, Muttada P.O., Kowdiar Village, Thiruvananthapuram (by Adv. Dougles Linsby N.R.)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER The averments contained in the complaint as amended in short are stated below:

2. The opposite party is a builder who promoted a housing project by name “Garden View” at Kattayikonam. On seeing an advertisement of the project, the complainant had approached the opposite party and entered into an agreement to purchase 3.3cents of the property in Resurvey No.145/24-1 of Ayirooppara Village and for construction of a building with 1267sq.ft. by fixing a total sale consideration of Rs.37,37,650/-(Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only). On 24.03.2012 an agreement was also executed. Plot No.B12 was allotted to the complainant and in accordance with the terms and conditions in the agreement, the complainant had paid the requisite money for the purchase of 3.3cents of land and got the sale deed registered in her name by virtue of deed No.1544/2012 of Pothencode, SRO. 3. On 18.09.2012 an agreement for construction of a villa was also executed between the complainant and the opposite party. As per the stipulation in the construction agreement, the work of the villa project should be completed by 31.03.2013. The complainant had remitted a total sum of Rs.36,59,502/-(Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Two only) in six instalments commencing from 24.03.2012.

The last instalment was paid on 10.06.2013.

4. The opposite party had given a discount of Rs.78,148/-(Rupees Seventy Eight Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight only) for making full payment before the schedule time. Believing the assurance made by the opposite party and in view of the discount granted by the opposite party, the complainant was constrained to make the full payment. Now almost three years had elapsed. Only 40% of the construction work could be carried out by the opposite party. The basement and mason work was partly over. Window frame and door frame are kept open. On enquiry, the opposite party told the complainant that the window frame and door frame along with the door shutters will be fitted after applying wall finish putty and the same explanation was given by the opposite party to the other owners similarly placed in the project. The development of common area has been postponed and finally the opposite party had announced that on 15.04.2015, the keys will be handed over and a programme will be arranged at the Mascot Hotel. Though the complainant and other customers raised their objection in conducting such a programme without finishing the work or even completing half the project, the opposite party was able to convince the complainant that the project will be completed within 45 days. But the opposite party did not complete the project as agreed.

The remaining work which are to be carried out are: a. fixation of doors and windows including frames b. flooring, electrical wiring, plumbing c. painting work including application of wall putty d.