Archive · 21 Aug 2026
Kerala Builder Ordered to Pay for Unfit House
A family hired a builder to construct a house in Kerala.
They said the house was finished much later than promised and cost more than the agreed amount.
Soon after moving in, they found leaks, cracks, damp walls, broken fittings, and electrical problems.
The family said the house was unsafe and that they needed another place to live.
Inspectors examined the property and found defective work and inferior materials.
The builder did not come to the consumer commission to give its side.
The commission said the builder had provided poor service and used an unfair trade practice.
It ordered the builder to pay money for repairs, distress, and legal costs.
The awards total ₹25.25 lakh, apart from any applicable interest.
The Kollam District Consumer Commission found serious construction defects that made a Kerala house unfit for occupation.
The homeowner said he paid ₹42.63 lakh, despite an agreement specifying a construction cost of ₹32 lakh.
Reported problems included leaks, dampness, seepage, cracks, poor waterproofing, damaged fittings, and electrical faults.
The commission awarded ₹20 lakh for repairs and damages, ₹5 lakh for mental agony, and ₹25,000 in litigation costs.
The builder did not appear or submit a defence, and the case proceeded ex parte; one report also states that 9% annual interest applies to the repair award.
- Who
- Homeowner Visakh K, Luxury Builders managed by Jayadevan M V, and the Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- What
- The commission ordered the builder to pay ₹20 lakh for repairs and damages, ₹5 lakh for mental agony and inconvenience, and ₹25,000 in litigation costs.
- When
- The agreement was dated January 13, 2022; construction was completed on January 20, 2024; and the order was dated August 10. One report identifies the order year as 2026.
- Where
- The house was constructed in Kalliyoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, and the case was decided by the Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- Why
- The commission found that defective, substandard construction and failure to rectify the defects amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
Homeowner and Commission’s Findings
Builder’s Position
Quality of construction
Homeowner and Commission’s Findings
The homeowner alleged that the house had serious defects, and inspections found inferior materials, defective workmanship, inadequate waterproofing, seepage, cracks, and damaged fittings.
Builder’s Position
The builder did not appear before the commission or file a version, so no response or counterargument was presented in the reported proceedings.
Financial liability
Homeowner and Commission’s Findings
The commission held the builder responsible and ordered ₹20 lakh for repairs and damages, ₹5 lakh for mental agony, and ₹25,000 in costs.
Builder’s Position
The builder’s position on the amount awarded, the alleged excess payment, and the defects is not reported because the case proceeded ex parte.
Condition of the home
Homeowner and Commission’s Findings
The homeowner said the defects forced the family to arrange alternative accommodation because the property was unfit for occupation and raised health and safety concerns.
Builder’s Position
No opposing account of the home’s condition appears in the reports.
- Repair and damages award
- ₹20 lakh
- Mental agony compensation
- ₹5 lakh
- Litigation costs
- ₹25,000
- Total award including costs
- ₹25.25 lakh
- Amount allegedly paid
- ₹42,63,450
- Agreement construction cost
- ₹32 lakh
- Builder’s response
- The builder did not appear or file a defence; the matter proceeded ex parte
- Compliance period
- 45 days from receiving the order
