The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has imposed a fine of ₹1.10 lakh on a contractor for failure to complete two houses as agreed, thereby causing inconvenience, mental distress, hardship, and financial loss to the complainant.
The Commission, comprising president D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., delivered the verdict on a petition filed by Ouseph George of Aluva against Shijo Yohannan of Mattur near Aluva.
According to the petition, the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party on November 1, 2017, for the construction of two houses. Despite periodic payments amounting to ₹9,30,900, the contractor allegedly failed to complete the work within the stipulated time and unilaterally stopped construction on August 12, 2018.
The complainant further alleged that sub-standard materials were used, and defects were present, which he claimed to have rectified by engaging other workers at an additional cost around ₹2 lakh. He also filed an original suit before the Aluva munsiff court. A commissioner appointed by the court later confirmed that the works remained incomplete, and no construction was going on at the site. The complainant said that he had availed himself a loan for the project and continued to pay EMIs.
The opposite party contended that he never received ₹9,30,900, claiming, instead, that he was paid only half the daily labour charges. He argued that the construction was carried out strictly as per the approved plan, under the supervision of the complainant and his engineer. He further claimed that the complainant owed him ₹16,12,640 and that when 99% of the work was completed, the complainant obstructed the work and subsequently filed the original suit.
The Commission observed that the opposite party had not filed any written arguments. It held that abandoning construction after receiving substantial payment constituted a clear deficiency in service. Failure to complete the work within the agreed period was deemed an actionable deficiency. Similarly, the use of sub-standard materials and poor workmanship amounted to negligence. The claim that 99% of the work was completed was disproved by the court-appointed commissioner’s report and lacked credible evidence. The allegation that the complainant obstructed the work also remained unsubstantiated, the Commission noted.
Consequently, the opposite party was directed to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, along with ₹10,000 towards the costs of proceedings.
Published – January 08, 2026 01:58 am IST
