Pranav B Prem

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, has held a house contractor liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after finding that the construction work entrusted to him was abandoned midway and executed with sub-standard materials. The Commission awarded compensation of ₹1,10,000 to the complainant, observing that failure to complete construction after receiving substantial payment constitutes a clear breach of contractual and statutory obligations.

Also Read: Failure To Settle Legitimate Fire Insurance Claim Based On Presumptive Survey Report Is Deficiency In Service: Kupwara Consumer Commission

The complaint was decided by a Bench comprising D. B. Binu, President, V. Ramachandran, Member, and Sreevidhia T. N., Member. The Commission categorically held that abandonment of construction work after accepting a major portion of the agreed consideration amounts to actionable deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

The complainant engaged the opposite party contractor for construction of two residential houses. According to the complainant, construction commenced and substantial payments aggregating to more than ₹9 lakh were made to the contractor. However, despite receipt of the amount, the opposite party abandoned the work midway without any justification and failed to complete the construction. The complainant further alleged that sub-standard materials were used and that the workmanship was poor, compelling him to engage other workers to rectify defects at an additional cost of about ₹2 lakh.

Aggrieved by the inaction of the contractor, the complainant initially approached the civil court seeking an injunction. During those proceedings, a Commissioner was appointed to inspect the construction site. The Commissioner’s report revealed that construction had progressed only halfway, with unfinished walls, unfitted doors and windows, and an incomplete ground-floor parking area. The report also recorded the presence of hardened cement bags at the site and noted the absence of workers or any ongoing construction activity, corroborating the complainant’s allegation that the work had been abandoned.

The complainant stated that he had availed a housing loan for the project and continued to service the monthly instalments despite the incomplete construction. On these grounds, he sought compensation of ₹8.55 lakh for the losses suffered due to the contractor’s conduct.

The opposite party resisted the complaint, contending that he had not received the amounts claimed by the complainant and had been paid only half of the daily labour charges. He denied allegations of defective or negligent construction and instead claimed a sum of ₹16,12,640, alleging that the complainant obstructed the work and compelled him to file a suit. However, despite being granted repeated opportunities, the opposite party failed to adduce any evidence in support of these assertions. Consequently, the Commission closed the evidence of the opposite party.

On appreciation of the material on record, the Commission held that the complainant clearly fell within the definition of a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act and that a contractor rendering construction services for consideration is a “service provider.” It noted that the complainant’s allegations were duly supported by documentary evidence, including the Commissioner’s report, whereas the opposite party’s version remained unsubstantiated.

The Commission observed that abandonment of construction work after receiving substantial payment constitutes clear deficiency in service. It further held that failure to complete construction within the agreed period is an actionable deficiency and that the use of sub-standard materials and poor workmanship amounts to negligence. In the words of the Bench, “abandonment of construction work after receiving substantial payment constitutes clear deficiency in service,” and such conduct cannot be condoned.

Also Read: Delayed Diagnosis And Misrepresentation Of Qualifications Causing Permanent Infertility Amounts To Medical Negligence: Delhi Consumer Commission

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, along with ₹10,000 towards costs of the proceedings. The award was made in recognition of the financial loss, inconvenience, and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the contractor’s failure to complete the construction.

Cause Title: Ouseph George Karumathi v. Shijo Yohannan

Case No: CC No. 353 of 2018

Coram: D. B. Binu, President, V. Ramachandran, Member, and Sreevidhia T. N., Member