Ernakulam Consumer Commission Holds Prima Everlast Roof Makers Liable For Faulty Roof, Orders Full Refund With Compensation

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 practices for failing to complete the truss roofing properly, causing leakage and structural defects.

Brief Facts of the Case:

The complainant, Deepanjali P.B., a resident of Ernakulam, engaged Prima Everlast Roof Makers for truss roofing at her house through an agreement dated 25th November 2022, with work scheduled to commence on 28th November. The respondent started late on 30th November and initially used substandard materials, which were replaced after the complainant's objections. Work was interrupted in early December after the complainant's father's passing, but resumed on 5th December 2022. The respondent failed to personally supervise the project as promised. On 12th January 2023, the respondent claimed the work was completed, and Deepanjali paid the agreed sum of ₹7,72,200.

However, during the onset of monsoon in June 2023, severe leakage began through the roof at several spots, especially around the “Naduthalam” (central portion), showing defects in construction. The complainant promptly informed the respondent and shared photographs and video. The respondent visited the site only in December 2023, made temporary fixes by inserting screws in some places, but did not address the core issues or carry out further repairs despite assuring the complainant to do so.

Distressed by this situation, the complainant filed a complaint before the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and sought a refund of the amount paid, along with compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, and litigation expenses.

Contentions of The Parties:

The complainant asserted that the respondent delayed the work, used low-quality materials, and failed to supervise as promised. After declaring the work complete, roof leaks appeared during the monsoon; only temporary repairs were provided despite the complainant raising the issue. These failures were claimed to be clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The Commission issued notice to the respondent, but he failed to appear or submit the reply. Consequently, the Commission treated the service as duly effected and proceeded with ex-parte action against the respondent.

As the respondent did not submit any reply or defence, the allegations made by the complainant remained unrebutted, and the Commission found the statements of the complainant to be credible and reliable.

Observations and Decisions of the Commission:

The Commission found the complainant's claims to be credible. The respondent failed to carry out the truss roofing work on time and in accordance with the agreement. During the monsoon, water began seeping through the roof, there was no proper supervision at the work site, and only temporary measures were taken despite the ongoing problem. The respondent did not respond to the notice issued by the Commission. Expert reports further confirmed serious deficiencies in the workmanship and engineering errors.

The Commission concluded that the respondent's negligence and deficiency in service caused significant financial loss and mental distress to the complainant.

The Commission ruled in favor of the complainant and directed the respondent to:

1. Pay ₹7,72,200/- to the complainant.

2. Pay ₹30,000/- as compensation for mental anguish and inconvenience.

3. Pay ₹10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.

Click Here To Read/Download The Order