AMIYA DAS vs VIJENDRA SING DIWAKAR

This revision is directed against the order of the Chhattishgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, "the State Commission) dated 10.6.2016 in first appeal No.FA/16/78 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent filed a consumer complaint alleging that he engaged the petitioner for construction of his house in consideration of Rs.12,30,000/-. As per the agreement, the construction was to be completed within six months and the contractor was to be paid in installments depending upon the stage of the construction done. It is alleged that till the laying of the roof, total amount to be paid to the petitioner/contractor was Rs.5 lakhs. The petitioner, however, arbitrarily stopped the construction at the stage of laying of the roof. He did not even initiate the construction of the porch/verandah. According to the complainant the cost of the work done by the contractor was Rs.4,60,000/- against which he had received a sum of Rs.5,40,000/-. As the petitioner stopped the work and did not recommence the construction work despite repeated requests, the respondent got the construction work completed from someone else. Being aggrieved of the act of the petitioner, the respondent filed a consumer complaint seeking refund of the excess amount of Rs.80,000/- besides compensation for unnecessary delay, harassment and agony caused.

Petitioner on being served with the notice of the complaint filed the written statement denying the allegations of deficiency in service made by the complainant. According to the petitioner he did not stop the construction work. Actually the complainant defaulted in making the payment commensurate with the progress of the construction.

District Forum on consideration of the evidence and the pleadings found the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service and allowed the complaint. The petitioner was directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.80,000/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of order besides Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission also on re-appreciation of evidence concurred with the finding of the District Forum and while maintaining the order of the District Forum, the State Commission reduced the compensation for harassment awarded by the District Forum from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Being aggrieved the petitioner has come in revision.

Learned Shri Rahul Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that both the Foras below have committed an error in appreciating the evidence. They failed to appreciate that the petitioner did not stop the working and there was an issue of account. It is further submitted that Foras below ought to have got the neutral inspection of the construction work done to assess the cost of said construction.

The jurisdiction of this Commission flows from Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it is limited only to correct the jurisdictional error or some material irregularity. Ordinarily the Commission is not supposed to undertake the exercise to re-appreciate the evidence particularly in case of concurrent finding of fact unless some material irregularity is shown by the petitioner. Recently, Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd . 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed as under: "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."

In the instant case both the Foras below have allowed the complaint and the appeal on the basis of evidence by well-reasoned orders. No material irregularity has been shown by learned counsel for the petitioner in the finding. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the concurrent finding of the Foras below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction particularly when there is no jurisdictional error. Revision petition is dismissed. 8. Petitioner to comply with the order of the Fora below within 30 days, failing which the respondent shall be at liberty to execute the order.