KHALID vs Shoukathali

CHALLENGE in these proceedings is to the order dated 25.3.2011 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 204/2011. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrisur in CC No. 694/2009 thereby allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party contractor (petitioner herein) to pay a sum of Rs. 4,01,017 towards the cost of rectification of the defect in the construction of the tenement besides a compensation of Rs. 5,000 with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum.

NOTICE was issued to the respondent/complainant limited to the aspect if the Fora below were justified in granting the kind of relief they had granted to the complainant, which according to the petitioner was even in excess to the relief claimed by the complainant in his complaint. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the relief clause contained in the complaint filed by the complaint before the District Forum, which reads as under: "Therefore this Hon ''ble Forum may be pleased to (A) Direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 2,50,000 to the petitioners as damages for the loss sustained by the petitioners on account of non-construction of the house as per the agreement, along with interest at the rate of 12% from this date till realization, Rs. 10,000 towards Court expenses and Rs. 10,000 as compensation for the loss, injury and hardship suffered by the petitioners. "

ON the basis of above, he submits that once the complainant has himself sought an amount of Rs. 2,50,000 as damages for the loss sustained by him on account of non-construction of the house as per the agreement along with interest and Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 10,000 as cost of the proceedings, the District Forum had exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding a sum of Rs. 4,01,017 with interest and compensation as noted above. Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant justifies the orders of the Fora below awarding the compensation to the above extent on the parity of reasoning that the expert Commissioner was appointed to find out the defect/deficiencies in the construction carried out by the petitioner contractor and the said Commissioner submitted a report thereby quantifying the cost of remaining construction at Rs. 4,01,017 which weighed heavily with the Fora below in awarding the compensation to the above extent. In our view, despite this report and the complainant having not sought any modification of the complaint or upgradation of the claim in his complaint, the Fora below were not justified in granting a compensation exceeding Rs. 2,50,000 which was claimed by the complainant in his complaint.

IN view of the above, we would like to modify the order of the Fora below so as to restrict the award to a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 only. So far as the award of interest @ 12% on the said amount is concerned, the same is considered somewhat on higher side. In such a case, award of interest @ 9% p.a. would have adequately met the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission will be deemed to have been modified in the manner that the figure of Rs. 4,01,017 shall be substituted by Rs. 2,50,000 and the figure of interest @ 12% p.a. shall be substituted by the figure @ 9%. All other stipulations appearing in the order of the Fora below shall remain unaltered. Revision Petition partly allowed.