MURALEEDHARAN Vs. K. R LEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant allegedly approached the petitioner for construction of a residential building with a plinth area of 132.35 square metres. He paid the entire consideration of Rs. 8,19,000/- demanded by the petitioner though according to him only 95% of the work had been done. The complainant started residing in the house but noticed several cracks and other defects in the said house. The defects included seepage through the cracks. The cracks were specified in paragraph 3 of the consumer complaint. Some other defects in the construction are also alleged. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking compensation quantified at Rs. 4 lacs from the petitioner as well as from respondent No. 2, who had allegedly supervised the construction.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner as well as by R-2. It was alleged by R-2 that he being only a supervisor and having not received any consideration there was no privity of contract between him and the complainant. The petitioner, however, claimed that the complainant who is is a disciple of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar had contacted the petitioner through Sh. Hari Kumar and Sh. Chandrasekharan. The complainant requested her to provide his workers. The petitioner who is an A-class contractor and has constructed several buildings agreed to help the complainant in minimising the expenditure to be incurred on the construction. It was also alleged in the written version filed by the petitioner that only 90% of the construction work was completed and the plastering of the house was to be done but the complainant insisted that no plaster was required. It is also alleged that the petitioner had suggested the construction of one or two pillars of the west side of the house of but the complainant insisted that those pillars were not required. Thus, according to the petitioner the complainant himself was responsible for the alleged cracks in the house. As regards the construction it was alleged that the complainant had returned only Rs.3,45,000/- to the petitioner out of the expenditure incurred by him and the balance difference amount was still due from him.

(3.) The District Forum directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lacs to the complainant.