SREELATHA Vs. BAKER HOMES REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(2.) The case of the complainant is as follows:

(3.) The complainant entrusted construction of a residential building with car porch and a commercial shop room with the 1st opposite party M/s Baker Homes. The 2nd opposite party is the director of the 1st opposite party construction company. But the opposite parties failed to construct the residential building with car porch and commercial shop room as agreed. There occurred deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in executing the aforesaid construction works. The residential building constructed by the opposite parties was having leakage and that the car porch is not fit for the purpose of keeping a car. The construction of the commercial shop room was also defective and that the local authority for the said commercial shop room as it was constructed violating the prevailing building rules. The complainant has to demolish the said shop room which is furnished by the complainant by incurring expenses of Rs. 3,00,000. Thus, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 20,85,000 as compensation including the compensation for mental agony hardship and other difficulties suffered by the complainant. 3. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is ill -conceived and mischievous and liable to be dismissed. The 1st opposite party is not a company that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in constructing the residential building and other structures. The allegations and averments are made contrary to realities and suppressing material facts. There was no agreement to construct a car porch as alleged. The commercial shop room was constructed as per the specification of the complainant and that there was no agreement to get approved plan from the local authority by the opposite party. On 3.5.03 an agreement executed between the complainant and 2nd opposite party for construction of house having 1,250 square feet for a total cost of Rs. 5,25,000 at a rate of Rs. 420 per square feet. The construction work has been completed up to the satisfaction of the complainant. There was no defect in the construction of the building. The opposite party never promised to take necessary permission from the local authority. The attempt on the part of the complainant is to harass the opposite parties. The opposite parties are willing to rectify the leakage in the building. Hence the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP 9 of 2004.