STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/14/129 dr john k j PRESENT ADDRESS - kalluvettu kuzhiyil house, kattachira p.o, kottayam 686572 ,KERALA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus viju abhraham PRESENT ADDRESS - kakaryil house, othera east p.o, thiruvalla ,KERALA.

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

BEFORE:

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

NEMO FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NEMO DATED: 03/03/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C.No.129/2014 JUDGEMENT DATED: 03.03.2025 PRESENT HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER COMPLAINANT:

Dr. John K.J., S/o K.J. James, Kalluveettukuzhiyil (H), Kattachira P.O., Kottayam – 686 572 (by Adv. D.R. Rajesh)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Viju Abraham, S/o K.A. Abraham, Kakaryil, Puthenpurayil (H), Amayannur P.O., Kottayam – 686 019

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the contactor who had constructed the residential building of the complainant.

2. The averments contained in the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant had purchased 10cents of land in Survey No.651/2-1 of Ettumanoor Village. He had obtained a building plan from one architect and permit for the construction of his residential building from the Ettumanoor Grama Panchayat. He had also put a foundation for a two storied building having a plinth area of 2500sq.ft. The opposite party claims himself to be an expert in the field of construction. He approached the complainant and offered to undertake the construction work. Accordingly, on 30.08.2013 the complainant and the opposite parties have entered into an agreement, wherein the complainant had to give Rs.1,075/-(Rupees One Thousand and Seventy Five only) per sq.ft. with a stipulation to complete the work within nine months. Electric, plumbing, floor tiles and wooden work were not included in the contract. It was further stipulated that if the truss work is not done, a deduction @Rs.150/- per sq.ft. from the total amount could be made.

3. The opposite party had received a total amount of Rs.18,00,000/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) from the complainant and he had issued receipts for the same. The opposite party was regularly demanding more money for the completion of the work. But he never completed the work within the period of nine months. The complainant came to know that the opposite party was not doing the work in a proper manner and he had collected excess amount than that of the work done. As per the karar the length of the show pillar is 7ft. 20cms. But the constructed show pillar was having 6ft. 9inches. In order to reconstruct the aforesaid pillar, the complainant had to spend an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only). The front shade constructed is uneven and not in the proper level. In order to reconstruct it, another Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) is required.

4. The plastering work of the first and ground floor was not completed for which an additional amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is needed. The front portion of the veranda is uneven. For correcting the same, the plastering has to be removed for which additional amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is needed. The plastering work was improper on the edges of the house. For rectification of the said defect, an additional amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is required. After receiving Rs.18,00,000/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only), the opposite party had stopped the work. The complainant would claim refund of Rs.9,50,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) as the said amount is required for the rectification. He would allege deficiency in service.

5. Initially, he had filed a complaint before the District Commission, Kottayam as C.C.No.372/2014 but the case was retu