STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/13/442 SHEELA S MENON PRESENT ADDRESS - 30/146/,SREERUDRAM,VANIYAM LANE,PONKUNNAM ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus PRINCIPAL ARCHITECH PRESENT ADDRESS - PRINCIPAL ARCHITECH,SYMBOL CREATIVE STIDIO,KRISHNA BUILDING,SHONUR ROADTHRISSUR,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:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 26/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.442/2013 JUDGEMENT DATED: 26.06.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.719/2008 on the files of DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

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

Ramesh Warrier, Principal Architect, Symbol Creative Studio, Krishna Buildings, Shornur Road, Thrissur (by Adv. Narayan R.)

Vs

RESPONDENT:

Sheela S. Menon, W/o MSK Menon, 30/146/1, Sreerudram, Vaniyam

Lane, Poonkunnam, Thrissur – 680 002

(by Adv. R.S. Kalkura)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.719/2008 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant had alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party with regard to the construction of her residential building. After the completion of the frame work of the residential house, the respondent was entrusted to carry out the remaining work. The respondent had agreed to complete the remaining work for a total sum of Rs.23,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Ten Thousand only). It was agreed to construct a car shed by utilizing the said amount. It was also agreed that the electrical equipments brought by the complainant from abroad can be utilised for the electrical work and reduce the cost of imported items from the agreed amount, but the opposite party had violated the terms of the agreement. He did not complete the construction even after receiving Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs only). For the completion of the construction, a further amount of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) was also necessary.

3. Several defects in the construction were also noticed by the complainant. The construction of the sunshade is defective and during rainy season, water will be falling on the doors, windows and walls. So the sunshade should be reconstructed. The electrical wiring and installation of switches were not of good quality. The imported electrical appliances were not utilised. The plans pertaining to the electrical and plumbing works were not furnished to the complainant. The plumbing work is improper. There is over flow of water from the water tank. The opposite party purchased more pipes than required. The wood work is defective. No polishing was done on the wooden items. No hand rails was installed in the ladder. The opposite party had collected money for using teak wood. The tile works were done improperly. The washbasin was not installed in a proper manner. The construction of the kitchen cabinet was defective. The complainant had also given Rs.5,15,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh Fifteen Thousand only) again to the opposite party. This amount was returned to the complainant on receipt of a lawyer notice issued by the complainant. In the above circumstances, the complainant had approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service.

4. The opposite party had entered appearance and filed version by conceding the arrangements made for the completion of the construction of the house. According to him, the structure was constructed by another engineer by spending an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only). The complainant was dissatisfied with the construction and approached the opposite party to re-design the same. The opposite party had re-designed and an estimate was prepared for Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees