Ernakulam Consumer Commission Holds Prima Everlast Roof Makers Liable For Faulty Roof; Orders Full Refund With Compensation
Pranav B Prem
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member), and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member), held Pradeep Kumar S., owner of M/s Prima Everlast Roof Makers, liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to execute truss roofing work properly, which led to severe leakage and structural defects. The Commission directed the respondent to refund the entire contract amount of ₹7,72,200 to the complainant and further pay ₹30,000 as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience, along with ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.
Background
The complainant, Deepanjali P.B., a resident of Ernakulam, had engaged Prima Everlast Roof Makers to undertake truss roofing work at her residence through an agreement dated 25 November 2022, with the work scheduled to begin on 28 November 2022. However, the contractor commenced work only on 30 November 2022 and initially used substandard materials, which were replaced after the complainant’s intervention. The work was halted in early December due to the passing of the complainant’s father and resumed on 5 December 2022. Despite assurances, the respondent failed to personally supervise the project.
On 12 January 2023, the respondent claimed that the roofing was completed, and the complainant paid the agreed amount of ₹7,72,200. However, during the monsoon of June 2023, the roof began leaking at multiple locations, particularly around the Naduthalam (central ridge). The complainant immediately notified the respondent and shared photographic and video evidence of the defects. The respondent visited the site only in December 2023 and made temporary fixes by inserting screws in a few spots but failed to rectify the underlying structural problems. Despite repeated assurances, no further repairs were undertaken, prompting the complainant to approach the Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Respondent’s Absence and Findings
The Commission noted that the respondent failed to appear before it or file any written version despite being duly served with notice. Consequently, the matter proceeded ex parte. Since no rebuttal evidence or defence was produced, the Commission accepted the complainant’s statements and evidence as credible and trustworthy. Expert inspection reports filed by the complainant corroborated the existence of serious workmanship defects and poor-quality construction, confirming that the roof was not properly installed.
The Commission observed that the respondent failed to complete the work as per the agreement, did not provide the promised supervision, and ignored the complainant’s repeated complaints after the leakage surfaced. The Commission remarked that the respondent’s conduct amounted to a clear case of negligence and deficiency in service under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Order
The Bench allowed the complaint partly, with the following directions:
The respondent shall refund ₹7,72,200/- to the complainant within one month.
The respondent shall pay ₹30,000/- as compensation for mental anguish and inconvenience.
The respondent shall pay ₹10,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.
Failure to comply within the prescribed period shall attract interest at 9% per annum on the total amount from the date of order until realization.
Cause Title: Deepanjali.P.B V. Pradeep Kumar.S
Case No: CC.No. 56 of 2024
Coram: Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member), Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member)
