Contractor fined ₹1.10 lakh for incomplete house construction in Ernakulam

Fine Imposed on Contractor for Incomplete Construction

The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has fined a contractor ₹1.10 lakh for not completing two houses as agreed. This failure caused inconvenience, mental distress, hardship, and financial loss to the complainant.

Details of the Case

The Commission, which includes president D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., made this decision based on a petition from Ouseph George of Aluva against Shijo Yohannan of Mattur near Aluva.

According to the petition, the complainant signed an agreement with the contractor on November 1, 2017, for building two houses. Despite making payments totaling ₹9,30,900, the contractor did not finish the work on time and stopped construction on August 12, 2018.

Allegations Against the Contractor

The complainant claimed that sub-standard materials were used and that defects were present. He had to hire other workers to fix these issues, costing him around ₹2 lakh. He also filed a suit in the Aluva munsiff court. A court-appointed commissioner later confirmed that the work was incomplete and no construction was happening at the site. The complainant mentioned he took out a loan for the project and continued to pay EMIs.

Contractor’s Defense

The contractor argued that he did not receive ₹9,30,900. He claimed he was only paid half of the daily labor charges. He stated that the construction followed the approved plan and was supervised by the complainant and his engineer. The contractor also claimed that the complainant owed him ₹16,12,640 and that the complainant obstructed the work when it was 99% complete.

Commission’s Findings

The Commission noted that the contractor did not submit any written arguments. It found that stopping construction after receiving significant payment was a clear deficiency in service. The contractor’s failure to complete the work on time was also deemed an actionable deficiency. The use of sub-standard materials and poor workmanship was seen as negligence. The claim that 99% of the work was done was disproved by the court-appointed commissioner’s report. The allegation that the complainant obstructed the work was also unproven.

Outcome

As a result, the contractor was ordered to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, along with ₹10,000 for the costs of proceedings.