STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/570/2018 OMANA FRANCIS PRESENT ADDRESS - ARYADANVATHUCKAL KARIKKODU PO PERUVA KOTTAYAM,KERALA.

K J FRANCIS PRESENT ADDRESS - ARYADANVATHUKKAL KARIKODU PO KOTTAYAM,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus E G BALAKRISHNAN PRESENT ADDRESS - ELANJIKKATTU KUZHIYIL VEEDU KARIKKODU PO KOTTAYAM,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: 10/12/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.570/2018 JUDGMENT DATED : 10.12.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.185/2012 on the files of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1. Omana Francis, Aryadanvathuckal, Karikkodu P.O., Peruva, Kottayam

2. K.J. Francis, Aryadanvathuckal, Karikkodu P.O., Peruva, Kottayam (by Adv. M. Saifudeen)

Vs RESPONDENT:

E.G. Balakrishnan, Elanjikkattu Kuzhiyil Veedu, Karikkodu P.O., Kottayam – 686 610 (by Adv. K.K. Venu Gopakumar)

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The opposite parties in C.C.No.185/2012 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (for short, the District Commission) are the appellants.

2. On 23.05.2018, the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay the complainant Rs.71,109/-(Rupees Seventy One Thousand One Hundred and Nine only) and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as costs with a default clause to pay interest at 10% in the event of non-compliance of the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed. 3. The allegation contained in the complaint is that the complainant and the opposite parties had entered into a construction agreement on 25.01.2011 for the construction of a residential building with a total plinth area of 1372 sq.ft. @Rs.1250/- per sq.ft. The cost of construction was fixed as Rs.17 lakhs. At the time of causing execution of the agreement, an amount of Rs.1 lakh was paid as advance. Subsequently, the complainant had paid the entire amount covered by the agreement as demanded by the opposite parties, which was duly acknowledged by them. In addition to the construction work of the building, the construction of the compound wall was also entrusted with the opposite parties for which an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) was also paid. After completion of the construction on 15.01.2012, the complainant had taken possession of the building and a housewarming ceremony was also conducted. The supervisor of the opposite parties stated that the remaining work will be carried out later and a list was prepared by him. But when the complainant sought for the completion of the balance work, the opposite parties had declined to do it. While so, the Village Officer and the officials attached to the panchayat had measured the house for the assessment of tax. Then it was found that the house was only having a plinth area of 1339 sq.ft. This fact was intimated to the opposite party over phone. But the response of the opposite parties was very bad. In the above circumstances deficiency in service was alleged against the opposite parties.

4. The opposite parties had entered appearance and filed a written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to them, the construction of the residential building was completed and the possession was given to the complainant within the time specified by the agreement. While handing over possession, the complainant had no complaints. The construction was effected as per the approved plan on the basis of the plan prepared with “vasthu”