STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/527/2017 Dr V U PANICKER PRESENT ADDRESS - SREEVALSAM, UMMANEZHI, PULAPETTA, KADAMPAZHIPURAM PANCHAYATH, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD- 678645 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus KRISHNAKUMAR V PRESENT ADDRESS - DEVAYANAM, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, KERALASSERY, PALAKKAD-

678641 ,KERALA. .......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

Dr V U PANICKER, V C JANARDHANAN (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

KRISHNAKUMAR V DATED: 28/05/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.527/2017 JUDGEMENT DATED : 28.05.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.181/2013 on the files of DCDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

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

Dr. V.U. Panicker, S/o Late Ravunni Panicker, “Sreevalsam”, Ummanezhi, Pulapetta, Kadampazhipuram Panchayath, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad – 678 645 (by Adv. V.C. Janardhanan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Krishnakumar V., S/o A.P. Kesavan Nair, “Devyanam”, High School

Road, Keralassery, Palakkad – 678 641

(by Adv. Dhananjayan)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER The complainant in C.C.No.181/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (the District Commission for short) is the appellant.

2. The complainant had filed the complaint by resorting to Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with respect to the construction of a residential building.

3. The averments contained in the complaint in short is that the complainant, a resident of Bangalore, had proposed to construct a two storied residential building in the plot comprising survey No.275/1 of Ummanazhi Village. The construction work was undertaken by the opposite party for a total cost of Rs.22,86,540/-(Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Forty only) inclusive of service tax and other charges. The work was entrusted to the opposite party in July 2010 to be completed on a turn-key basis by December 2011. Though the opposite party had quoted Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) per sq.ft and the complainant was aware that the maximum construction cost would be Rs.850/-(Rupees Eighty Hundred and Fifty only) per sq.ft he agreed for the higher rate on the reason that the construction will be done with branded items specified by him.

3. Out of the total consideration, Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) was paid by cheque, Rs.6,92,000/-(Rupees Six Lakh Ninety Two Thousand only) through NEFT mode and the balance amount of Rs.9,94,540/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred and Forty only) by cash. There was no written agreement but the complainant insisted that the opposite party should execute the construction work by using ‘A’ class quality materials.

4. The complainant being a resident of Bangalore, had to communicate the opposite party through phone to ascertain the progress of the work and the quality checks with respect to the construction. Taking undue advantage of the above circumstances, the opposite party had executed the work with deficiency and disparities. In July-September 2011, the complainant had inspected the work site and found serious defects in the construction. The complainant was defrauded and cheated by the opposite party to the tune of quantity of 196 teak wood worth Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) approximately 200 cubic feet which was transported from the residential premises of the complainant. The cost of the teak wood does not form part of the contractual consideration agreed and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) was to be paid to the complainant or adjusted towards the total cost of construction. Since the above amount was not repaid, the total cost of construction was actually Rs.24,86,540/-(Rupee