G. SUBRAMANIA PILLAY vs M. Unnikrishnan

THIS revision petition challenges a common order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in appeal Nos.252/2012 & 608/2012 whereby the State Commission partly allowed the appeal No.252/2012 filed by the respondents/opposite parties and dismissed the other appeal No.608/2012 filed by the petitioner/complainant.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts of this case are that the revision petitioner herein who is the original complainant had entrusted the work of constructing a residential building with a plinth area of 600 sq. ft. @ Rs.750/ - per sq. ft. to the respondents/opposite parties on 23.6.2008. As per the agreement between the parties, the construction of the building was to be completed by January, 2009. The opposite parties had also agreed to construct a compound wall at a cost of Rs.20,000/ -. The period of construction was extended for another six months in February, 2009. As per the allegation in the complaint, the complainant had paid Rs.6.2 Lakhs against the cost of construction which came to Rs.4.55 Lakhs. Since there was delay in the completion of the construction within the stipulated time, the complainant filed a consumer complaint claiming Rs.1,65,000/ - being the excess payment to the opposite parties and Rs.20,000/ - for the depreciation of the building and Rs.45,000/ - as rental value for 15 months and Rs.60,000/ - by way of compensation for the damages with interest. The opposite parties contested the claim. Both the parties filed their evidence in support of their claims. The District Forum vide its order partly accepted the complaint in terms of the following reliefs: - ''''We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/ - as compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.3,000/ - as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization ''''

BOTH the petitioner/complainant and the respondents/opposite parties had challenged the order dated 28.1.2012 passed by the District Forum, Palakkad before the State Commission. While the respondents/opposite parties had approached the State Commission for setting aside of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/complainant had appealed against the order of the District Forum and prayed for higher compensation.

BY its aforesaid impugned common order the State Commission reduced the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum in favour of the complainant/petitioner from Rs.50,000/ - to Rs.30,000/ - but confirmed the rest of the order. Aggrieved of this order of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant has now filed the present revision petition in which he has prayed for increasing the amount of compensation keeping in view the alleged excess payment of Rs.1,65,000/ - made by him to the opposite parties/respondents by setting aside the impugned order and modifying the relief.

WE have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person and learned Shri Nishi Rajen Shonker, Advocate for the respondents.

WE may note that two points had arisen before the State Commission for consideration, namely, whether the petitioner/complainant has paid excess amount to the respondents/opposite parties and whether the compensation awarded in the matter by the District Forum is excessive. Perusal of the orders of Fora below shows that both the Foras have returned their concurrent finding on the first point and have concluded that the claim of the complainant/petitioner regarding excess amount is not established. Regarding the second point the State Commission has modified the amount of compensation by reducing it from Rs.50,000/ - to Rs.30,000/ -. The State Commission has passed this order keeping in view the report of the Local Commissioner, terms & conditions of the agreement between the parties and other evidence adduced by them before it. The State Commission has recorded reasons in support of its impugned order. There is no other legal issue involved for our consideration in this revision petition. In the circumstances there is no case for our interference under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under which we can interfere with the impugned orders of the Fora below only in case there is jurisdictional error on the part of the Foras below while returning their findings or they have acted in the exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Since we find no such instance which would justify our interference with the impugned order, we do not find any merit in this revision petition which is liable for dismissal. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed but with no order as to cost.