JUDGMENT : Neerja Singh.:- 1.Both these appeals No. 2259/2007 by the complainant and No. 2287/2007 by theopposite party, arise from the order dated 1 9-9-2007, passed by DistrictConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore , directing the opposite party to pay Rs . 28,900/- for repair of the complainant's house and Rs . 500/- as cost. 2.The complainant paid the opposite party builder, Rs .4 ,15,000 /-towards plot and construction of a house.The allegation of the complainant is that the foundation was not made properly,and within 8-10 months of the construction, the house started tilting to oneside. A number of cracks also developed. He further alleges that the brickwalls which according to specification were to be 9" were only 4" inwidth. The drainage pipes and taps were also of poor quality. Allegingdeficiency in service, the complainant has asked that Rs .2 ,89,000 /-, which he spent on the construction of thehouse is returned to him along with interest and compensation. 3.The opposite party builder has denied all the allegations. He states that thecomplainant owed him Rs . 26,000/- . After taking possession of the house, Rs .22,000/- was paid by him, after much persuasion. He alleges that Rs . 4,000/- are still due from the complainant, who hasunnecessarily raised this dispute to avoid payment. He further states that thecomplainant made no complaint or objection when taking possession of the houseand the present complaint is only to extract money. 4.The forum below partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party topay Rs . 28,900/- for the repairs of the house. 5.We have heard the learned Counsels of both the parties and perused thedocuments filed on record. 6.On the directions of the Forum, Shri Basant Gogde of the MunicipalCorporation, Indore ,inspected the house. His report is perfunctory and without any details. He onlystates that there is a gap between the disputed house and the adjoining house,and that it will take Rs . 800/- to fill the gap. Onwhat he based his assessment is not clear. No break-up of the costing has beengiven, nor has any reason been given for the gap or the width of the gap. Hehas also not said whether there is a tilt in the house or that the gap at thetop is more than that at the bottom. In our view, such a brief and cursoryreport can hardly be relied upon. No break-up of the costing has beengiven, nor has any reason been given for the gap or the width of the gap. Hehas also not said whether there is a tilt in the house or that the gap at thetop is more than that at the bottom. In our view, such a brief and cursoryreport can hardly be relied upon. 7.The complainant has filed a certificate of a Civil Engineer, Shri Vilas Vibhandik , who statesthat the north side-wall is cracked from the upper portion to the lower portion(parapet to plinth). At the time of inspection the gap in the upper portion was3" to 4", and in the lower portion it was 1" to 2". Hefurther states that the crack is due to structure failure, probably due to pilefoundation made on black cotton soil. Though he states that the gap may berepaired by cement concrete and supported by steel girder, whether it will stopthe house from tilting further is anybody's guess. The complainant has alsofiled photographs, which clearly evidence that the house has marginally tiltedto one side. Shri Vilas Vibhandik ,in his report, further states that a cost of Rs . 2 ,40,000 /- would be incurred in breaking down the house andrebuilding it. The opposite party builder has not specifically countered thereport, or the fact that the house has tilted away from the adjoining house. 8.We see no reason to disbelieve the report of Shri Vilas Vibhandik or the photographs shown to us.Obviously, due to incorrect foundation, the house has titled to one side. It isnot difficult to imagine the plight of a consumer who gets a house built withhis hard earned money, only to find that the very foundation of the house isdefective. Whether the house will tilt further is something, which will alwaysbe there at the back of his mind to make him miserable and anxious about thesafety of his family. He was clearly taken for a ride by the builder, whodeserves to be penalized for this deficiency in service. 9.In the result, while we dismiss Appeal No. 2287/2007 by the opposite party,Appeal No. 2259/2007 by the complainant is partly allowed and the oppositeparty is directed to break down the house and rebuild it, within a period of 6months from the date it is vacated by the complainant. In the alternative, he shallpay the complainant a sum of Rs . 9.In the result, while we dismiss Appeal No. 2287/2007 by the opposite party,Appeal No. 2259/2007 by the complainant is partly allowed and the oppositeparty is directed to break down the house and rebuild it, within a period of 6months from the date it is vacated by the complainant. In the alternative, he shallpay the complainant a sum of Rs . 2 ,40,000 /-,as assessed by the Engineer Shri Vilas Vibhandik , so that the complainant can rebuild the house onhis own. The opposite party shall also pay Rs .1,000/- to the complainant as cost of this appeal. This order be retained in Appeal No. 2259/07, and a copy be placed inthe record of Appeal No. 2287/07.