KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

C.C. No.16/2010

JUDGMENT DATED 29/06/2013

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                            :                 MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

          Leelamma Jose, D/o. Abraham M.K.

            Villa No.MIC, Heera Vasthu Gramam,

Kaakandu, Kochi-39.

(By Adv:   Sri. M.R. Hariraj)                   

                   Vs

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

          1.      M/s. Heera Construction (P) Ltd.,

                        Registered Office at Citi Centre, 113, Patto Plaza,

Panaji, Goa, Regional Office at Heera Park,

M.P. Appan Road, Vazhuthacaud,

Thiruvananthapuram-14. 

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Shri.A.Abdul Rasheed Alias Dr. A.R. Babu,

Son of Aliyarukunju, Residing at “Sunny Side”,

Keston Road, Opposite Raj Bhavan,

Kowdiar Village, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.          Mr. Ajay Kumar.N., Deputy General Manager,

     M/s. Heera Construction (P) Ltd., Regional Office,

     Heera Park, M.P. Appan Road,

     Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

                   (By Adv:   Sri. A. Santhosh Kumar)                    

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          This complaint is filed claiming Rs.55,00,000/- as compensation towards the demolition and reconstruction of the building and Rs.17,00,000/- towards the amount spent for the improvements carried out in the building.  Further relief claimed in the complaint is for Rs.25,00,000/- for the damages towards mental agony due to defective construction and delay in the delivery of properly constructed villa and also to allow the cost of the proceedings to realize from opposite parties and their assets.

          2.  The complainant is a citizen of USA, though of Indian origin, attracted by advertisement of construction and sale of luxury villas in Kakkanad contacted the opposite parties, the construction company.  On 14/09/2005 the complainant entered into an agreement for the purchase of plot No.MI-C with an extent of 7 cents having an offer with an imperial type house of 2650 sqft which would be constructed according to the specifications of the agreement and the proposed construction would be completed by July 2006.  The construction of the building was not over even in November 2006 and the complainant was compelled to conduct the blessing ceremony in November in an incomplete building.  The work of interiors and land scaping were pending.  At that time itself the complainant noticed some cracks on the walls of the completed structure.  In March 2007 when the sale deed executed it was noticed that though the old cracks were patched up, new and worse cracks formed in the building.  The opposite parties insisted for an undated cheque for the balance outstanding amount which was issued by the complainant on execution of sale deed. Though an undated cheque was given as security, the balance outstanding consideration for Rs.4 lakhs was kept in abeyance and promised to release after fixing the cracks.   Even after fixing cracks, new cracks kept on appearing and the patchwork was not worthwhile.  An expert from M/s. Associated Structures Consultants was engaged by opposite parties to inspect and it is suggested that the cracks are due to consolidation of soft top soil normally seen in sediment soils and the cracks will normally die out within 2 to 4 years after loading the soil.  Thereafter in early 2009 the opposite parties conceded that cracks developed not due to the problem of soil but due to structural defect in the building and agreed to construct 11 new piles connected to the existing piles through p