at last i filed a complaint in the district consumer disputes redressal forum.
for the last three and a half months as on date (20130126), i have been waiting in my 4 x 5 meters single brick single storey shack with asbestos/GI sheet roofing
Cheriyath Jyothi
the Cloister, nr Rock Park
Venkode P.O., Vattappara,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695028
previous address:
valayil, kizhakkambalam,
Ernakulam dt, PIN-683562.
Centre of Science and Technology for
Rural Development (COSTFORD),
District Extension centre, The Hamlet,
Benedict Nagar, Nalanchira P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695015
The address for service of orders and process orders of the complainant is as stated above.
C. The complainant states as follows :
1. When the complainant after he was into his sixties, decided due to extreme compulsions, to build a small house, a dwelling unit for himself, he approached the opposite party, the Centre of Science and Technology for Rural Development (COSTFORD), in view of their reputation as a padma shree Dr. Laurie Baker organization. Copy of the document “Building procedures and guidelines” provided by their District extension centre, Thiruvananthapuram – 695015 to the complainant is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C 1.
2. The opposite party's professed cost effective approach and technology suited the complainant. He decided to entrust the job of building his house in a rural area in Thiruvananthapuram to the opposite party and registered himself as a client ( vide Para B. 3. of EXHIBIT C 1 ) paying a fee of Rs.1000/- in February 2011.
3. After mutual agreement the complainant hired the consultancy services of the opposite party which covers design, cost estimation and site supervision of the new construction vide their project “RP/PC-194/2011/RESIDENCE FOR MR. CHERIYATH JYOTHI, KAYIPADI” at the service charge of 5.5% of the basic construction cost as estimated by the company to be paid in installments ( vide Para D. 1. of EXHIBIT C 1 ).
4. The liaison started from the very beginning. The opposite party's architect obliged by visiting the plots the complainant had shortlisted and advising him on their suitability. The first couple of plots that suited the complainant were later rejected on the advice of the architect and the plot of land on which the construction is being made was purchased after the architect OK'd it.
5. During the designing stage that followed, over and above the documents and information related to the project required vide para C of Exhibit C1, the complainant had provided the opposite party rough sketches he had made of the site plan and floor plan of the house he would want to live in, as a better means of conveying his requirements. Copies of a couple of such sketches are produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C 2. The complainant was glad to note that preliminary design was prepared fully incorporating the his ideas vide the above sketches. A copy of the preliminary design by the company under their project “RP/PC-194/2011/RESIDENCE FOR MR. CHERIYATH JYOTHI, KAYIPADI” is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C3.
6. At the time of the review of this preliminary design the complainant suggested that, as an economy measure, we forgo the carport, the estimated cost of which came to around one lakh rupees. This as well as the complainants' specific request that the rear yard be made equal to or more than 2meters to suit his specific needs was also accepted and the final drawing for submission to the local body were made incorporating these changes.
7. The complainant paid the opposite party Rs.8000/- ( Rupees eight thousand only ) the first installment of the service charge to be paid on plan submission as per their regulations vide Para D. 1. d. of EXHIBIT C 1 on 20.4.2011. Based on the drawings provided by the opposite party the complainant obtained the sanction of the local body vide permit No.29/2011-12 dated 26.4.2011 of the Karakulam Grama Panchayath. Copy of the plan prepared by the opposite party and approved by the local body is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C4. Therein the car port has been taken off and the depth of the rear yard has been increased to 2 meters from the 1.5 meters in the preliminary drawing ( EXHIBIT C 3 ) as per the complainant's request mentioned above.
8. The building construction itself started with the the basement/foundation stage in august 2011 after the complainant procured the materials required as per the directions of the opposite party. Materials were obtained in bulk in view of the requirements in the later stages of the building. The complainant had shifted his residence to a shack adjacent to the work site in order to make himself available on the spot all through. He was making the payment to the labourers on a daily basis as required by the company's regulations.
9. The bill for the basement work, copy of which is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C5, was presented to the complainant on October 08, 2011 and the complainant on the spot paid the dues to the contractor over and above what was already paid as wages to the labourers. The bill of another contractor involved in part of the basement job has never been cleared wherein the contractor was to have paid the complainant the additional amount paid as wages to the labourers.
10. The complainant had no previous experience in building construction in any capacity and was dependant solely on the opposite party for advice from the very beginning. He used to put forward his view points and make suggestions but it was always made crystal clear to the opposite party verbally as well as in writing that the the final decision was always with them, the experts in the field.
11. Unlike the designing stage the actual construction stage, the complainant felt, was faulty. It was a pity that the detailed plan and diagrams made by the professionals, like the line diagram for earth work produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C6, were not being translated on to the structure being built on ground.
12. The complainant is a student of science and can make out when an elementary physical principle is being flouted. On one such occasion when he saw that the people on ground were not following the clear cut instructions in the line diagram prepared by the company's own architects to the detriment of the structure and the people at the site were not able to comprehend what the complainant was trying to tell them, he made desperate calls to the office of the opposite party and the senior staff there indeed concurred with the complainant and ordered the necessary changes on ground.
13. The crux of the problem the complainant feels was that due care and attention were not being paid by senior members of the supervising staff and as such deficiencies have crept in in the construction. As suggested in Para F of Exhibit C1 the complainant had sent a detailed feed back vide his letter no. clo2011/bld/00 dated October 19, 2011 to the opposite party wherein the complainant had requested that more attention be paid from the opposite party's side to what is happening on ground. Copy of the above letter is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C 7. The complainant then kept himself busy planning and preparing for the next stages of the more critical aspects of the building process.
14. In January 2012, the complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party the fact that the siting of the building has not been properly done. The petitioner's main concern was the rear yard.
15. As requested by the complainant a senior engineer of the opposite party inspected the structure and accepted that the rear yard which as per the approved plan was to be of 2mtrs was on ground only 1.80cms deep. The copy of their letter no. PC/RP-194/2011 dated 29.2.2012 in this regard is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C8.
16. The complainant's basic interest was in getting the building constructed at the earliest and as such he had made viable propositions to sideline the issue which the opposite party was not keen on following up.
17. The complainant gave notice to the opposite party vide his No.2012/pp/01 dated June 08, 2012 copy of which is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C9, of his intention of taking legal action on the matter. There has been no response from the opposite party till date and as such the complainant is approaching the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum Thiruvananthapuram with this complaint on the following
18.
a. The rear yard was changed from the 1.5 meters in the preliminary design ( Exhibit C3 ) to 2 meters depth as seen in the final drawing approved by the local body ( Exhibit C4 ); and this change was brought in by the opposite party in response to a specific request of the complainant as mentioned in Para 6 above.
b. The opposite party vide Exhibits C8 has accepted the fact that on the construction made on ground the rear yard is just 1.8 meters and not 2 meters.
That means the construction made by the opposite party has been erratic.
19.
a. As is clearly evident from the site plan the front yard which legally was to have a minimum depth of 3 meters is 4.8mtrs or more in depth throughout the length of the building. The opposite party could have easily afforded to make the rear yard 2 meters, or even more.
b. There, thus, were no valid reasons or compulsions whatsoever on the opposite party to deviate from the approved plan, err on the negative side, and reduce the depth of the rear yard to 1.8 meters.
c. The site supervision is the responsibility of the opposite party ( vide para D.1.a. of Exhibit C1 )
Thus there is deficiency in the service provided.
The opposite party therefore is bound to rectify the error and make amends.
20.
a. Added to this is the fact that by making the rear yard only 1.80 meters the opposite party has opened up a whole pandora's box of conundrums regarding the legality of the building being constructed. If the Hon'ble forum so desires, the matter may be elaborated upon at the time of the hearing.
b. In the case of the above building under construction the complainant is putting all his eggs in one single basket and he cannot afford to take the slightest risks there.
21.
a. The building methodology the opposite party is following and the complainant had agreed to is unique.
b. In case the opposite party stops further work on the construction on one pretext or other the petitioner will have to write off the expenditure on the structure already built, demolish it and clear the area and start off from scratch again.
This will result in tremendous losses to the complainant in the form of loss of money and resources and, far more significant as far as the complainant is concerned, loss of valuable time which at his stage in life he cannot afford.
d. As such it becomes obligatory that the opposite party honour the commitment they have made and complete the building at the earliest as planned initially.
22. The complainant's main concern is getting the building constructed and approved at the earliest and not monetary compensation,
for there are elements involved here that cannot be compensated in any way, like, for example, time.
In view of the above the complainant humbly prays that the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram may be pleased to grant the complainant the following
II. RELIEFS AND COMPENSATION
a. direct the opposite party to rectify the error and make good the deficiency in service at their cost by making the rear yard of the building under construction be of minimum 2 meters depth all through.
b. ensure that the opposite party honour their commitment, take an active interest in the building and complete the construction as planned initially at the earliest.
Failing the above the opposite party may be ordered to pay the complainant a consolidated sum of Rs. 400,000/- (Rupees four hundred thousand only ) as compensation against the material losses as well as the time and energy spent by the complainant on the above project till date, all of which will go waste and for breach of promise.
for the last three and a half months as on date (20130126), i have been waiting in my 4 x 5 meters single brick single storey shack with asbestos/GI sheet roofing
while the builder is procrastinating
and
their learned lawyer is whispering
to the Hon'ble forum
and
getting postponement after postponement
of the date for filing a reply!
Here is a gist of my complaint:
the Cloister, nr Rock Park
Venkode P.O., Vattappara,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695028
previous address:
valayil, kizhakkambalam,
Ernakulam dt, PIN-683562.
vs
The joint director, Centre of Science and Technology for
Rural Development (COSTFORD),
District Extension centre, The Hamlet,
Benedict Nagar, Nalanchira P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695015
COMPLAINT
UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
I. DETAILS OF THE COMPLAINT
A. The complainant is Dr. Cheriyath Jyothi, aged 62 years, a Kerala Government pensioner who retired from service on superannuation while on the staff of Medical College Trivandrum as Lecturer, residing at the Cloister, nr Rock Park, Venkode P.O., Vattappara, Thiruvananthapuram – 695028.
The address for service of orders and process orders of the complainant is as stated above.
B. The opposite party is the Joint Director, Centre of Science and Technology for Rural Development (COSTFORD), District Extension Centre, The Hamlet, Benedict Nagar, Nalanchira P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695015.
The address for service of all notices and process orders of the opposite party is as stated above.
C. The complainant states as follows :
1. When the complainant after he was into his sixties, decided due to extreme compulsions, to build a small house, a dwelling unit for himself, he approached the opposite party, the Centre of Science and Technology for Rural Development (COSTFORD), in view of their reputation as a padma shree Dr. Laurie Baker organization. Copy of the document “Building procedures and guidelines” provided by their District extension centre, Thiruvananthapuram – 695015 to the complainant is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C 1.
2. The opposite party's professed cost effective approach and technology suited the complainant. He decided to entrust the job of building his house in a rural area in Thiruvananthapuram to the opposite party and registered himself as a client ( vide Para B. 3. of EXHIBIT C 1 ) paying a fee of Rs.1000/- in February 2011.
3. After mutual agreement the complainant hired the consultancy services of the opposite party which covers design, cost estimation and site supervision of the new construction vide their project “RP/PC-194/2011/RESIDENCE FOR MR. CHERIYATH JYOTHI, KAYIPADI” at the service charge of 5.5% of the basic construction cost as estimated by the company to be paid in installments ( vide Para D. 1. of EXHIBIT C 1 ).
4. The liaison started from the very beginning. The opposite party's architect obliged by visiting the plots the complainant had shortlisted and advising him on their suitability. The first couple of plots that suited the complainant were later rejected on the advice of the architect and the plot of land on which the construction is being made was purchased after the architect OK'd it.
5. During the designing stage that followed, over and above the documents and information related to the project required vide para C of Exhibit C1, the complainant had provided the opposite party rough sketches he had made of the site plan and floor plan of the house he would want to live in, as a better means of conveying his requirements. Copies of a couple of such sketches are produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C 2. The complainant was glad to note that preliminary design was prepared fully incorporating the his ideas vide the above sketches. A copy of the preliminary design by the company under their project “RP/PC-194/2011/RESIDENCE FOR MR. CHERIYATH JYOTHI, KAYIPADI” is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C3.
6. At the time of the review of this preliminary design the complainant suggested that, as an economy measure, we forgo the carport, the estimated cost of which came to around one lakh rupees. This as well as the complainants' specific request that the rear yard be made equal to or more than 2meters to suit his specific needs was also accepted and the final drawing for submission to the local body were made incorporating these changes.
7. The complainant paid the opposite party Rs.8000/- ( Rupees eight thousand only ) the first installment of the service charge to be paid on plan submission as per their regulations vide Para D. 1. d. of EXHIBIT C 1 on 20.4.2011. Based on the drawings provided by the opposite party the complainant obtained the sanction of the local body vide permit No.29/2011-12 dated 26.4.2011 of the Karakulam Grama Panchayath. Copy of the plan prepared by the opposite party and approved by the local body is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C4. Therein the car port has been taken off and the depth of the rear yard has been increased to 2 meters from the 1.5 meters in the preliminary drawing ( EXHIBIT C 3 ) as per the complainant's request mentioned above.
8. The building construction itself started with the the basement/foundation stage in august 2011 after the complainant procured the materials required as per the directions of the opposite party. Materials were obtained in bulk in view of the requirements in the later stages of the building. The complainant had shifted his residence to a shack adjacent to the work site in order to make himself available on the spot all through. He was making the payment to the labourers on a daily basis as required by the company's regulations.
9. The bill for the basement work, copy of which is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C5, was presented to the complainant on October 08, 2011 and the complainant on the spot paid the dues to the contractor over and above what was already paid as wages to the labourers. The bill of another contractor involved in part of the basement job has never been cleared wherein the contractor was to have paid the complainant the additional amount paid as wages to the labourers.
10. The complainant had no previous experience in building construction in any capacity and was dependant solely on the opposite party for advice from the very beginning. He used to put forward his view points and make suggestions but it was always made crystal clear to the opposite party verbally as well as in writing that the the final decision was always with them, the experts in the field.
11. Unlike the designing stage the actual construction stage, the complainant felt, was faulty. It was a pity that the detailed plan and diagrams made by the professionals, like the line diagram for earth work produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C6, were not being translated on to the structure being built on ground.
12. The complainant is a student of science and can make out when an elementary physical principle is being flouted. On one such occasion when he saw that the people on ground were not following the clear cut instructions in the line diagram prepared by the company's own architects to the detriment of the structure and the people at the site were not able to comprehend what the complainant was trying to tell them, he made desperate calls to the office of the opposite party and the senior staff there indeed concurred with the complainant and ordered the necessary changes on ground.
13. The crux of the problem the complainant feels was that due care and attention were not being paid by senior members of the supervising staff and as such deficiencies have crept in in the construction. As suggested in Para F of Exhibit C1 the complainant had sent a detailed feed back vide his letter no. clo2011/bld/00 dated October 19, 2011 to the opposite party wherein the complainant had requested that more attention be paid from the opposite party's side to what is happening on ground. Copy of the above letter is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C 7. The complainant then kept himself busy planning and preparing for the next stages of the more critical aspects of the building process.
14. In January 2012, the complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party the fact that the siting of the building has not been properly done. The petitioner's main concern was the rear yard.
15. As requested by the complainant a senior engineer of the opposite party inspected the structure and accepted that the rear yard which as per the approved plan was to be of 2mtrs was on ground only 1.80cms deep. The copy of their letter no. PC/RP-194/2011 dated 29.2.2012 in this regard is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C8.
16. The complainant's basic interest was in getting the building constructed at the earliest and as such he had made viable propositions to sideline the issue which the opposite party was not keen on following up.
17. The complainant gave notice to the opposite party vide his No.2012/pp/01 dated June 08, 2012 copy of which is produced herewith and marked EXHIBIT C9, of his intention of taking legal action on the matter. There has been no response from the opposite party till date and as such the complainant is approaching the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum Thiruvananthapuram with this complaint on the following
GROUNDS
18.
a. The rear yard was changed from the 1.5 meters in the preliminary design ( Exhibit C3 ) to 2 meters depth as seen in the final drawing approved by the local body ( Exhibit C4 ); and this change was brought in by the opposite party in response to a specific request of the complainant as mentioned in Para 6 above.
b. The opposite party vide Exhibits C8 has accepted the fact that on the construction made on ground the rear yard is just 1.8 meters and not 2 meters.
That means the construction made by the opposite party has been erratic.
19.
a. As is clearly evident from the site plan the front yard which legally was to have a minimum depth of 3 meters is 4.8mtrs or more in depth throughout the length of the building. The opposite party could have easily afforded to make the rear yard 2 meters, or even more.
b. There, thus, were no valid reasons or compulsions whatsoever on the opposite party to deviate from the approved plan, err on the negative side, and reduce the depth of the rear yard to 1.8 meters.
c. The site supervision is the responsibility of the opposite party ( vide para D.1.a. of Exhibit C1 )
Thus there is deficiency in the service provided.
The opposite party therefore is bound to rectify the error and make amends.
20.
a. Added to this is the fact that by making the rear yard only 1.80 meters the opposite party has opened up a whole pandora's box of conundrums regarding the legality of the building being constructed. If the Hon'ble forum so desires, the matter may be elaborated upon at the time of the hearing.
b. In the case of the above building under construction the complainant is putting all his eggs in one single basket and he cannot afford to take the slightest risks there.
21.
a. The building methodology the opposite party is following and the complainant had agreed to is unique.
b. In case the opposite party stops further work on the construction on one pretext or other the petitioner will have to write off the expenditure on the structure already built, demolish it and clear the area and start off from scratch again.
This will result in tremendous losses to the complainant in the form of loss of money and resources and, far more significant as far as the complainant is concerned, loss of valuable time which at his stage in life he cannot afford.
d. As such it becomes obligatory that the opposite party honour the commitment they have made and complete the building at the earliest as planned initially.
22. The complainant's main concern is getting the building constructed and approved at the earliest and not monetary compensation,
for there are elements involved here that cannot be compensated in any way, like, for example, time.
In view of the above the complainant humbly prays that the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram may be pleased to grant the complainant the following
II. RELIEFS AND COMPENSATION
a. direct the opposite party to rectify the error and make good the deficiency in service at their cost by making the rear yard of the building under construction be of minimum 2 meters depth all through.
b. ensure that the opposite party honour their commitment, take an active interest in the building and complete the construction as planned initially at the earliest.
Failing the above the opposite party may be ordered to pay the complainant a consolidated sum of Rs. 400,000/- (Rupees four hundred thousand only ) as compensation against the material losses as well as the time and energy spent by the complainant on the above project till date, all of which will go waste and for breach of promise.
sd.
( c. jyothi )
Complainant
for the last three and a half months as on date ( 20130126 ), i have been waiting in my 4 x 5 meters single brick single storey shack with asbestos/GI sheet roofing
for the last three and a half months as on date ( 20130126 ), i have been waiting in my 4 x 5 meters single brick single storey shack with asbestos/GI sheet roofing
while the builder is procrastinating
and
their learned lawyer is whispering
to the Hon'ble forum
and
getting postponement after postponement
of the date for filing a reply!
