AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 245 wordsWE heard the Counsel for the appellant and the respondent. Appeal No. 1086/1997 is filed by the 1st opposite party in OP 161/1995 on the file of the District Forum, Thiruvananthapuram and Cross Appeal No. 152/1998 is filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of relief.
THE 1st opposite party is the proprietor of M/s. S.L.V. Associates, a Construction Company undertaking construction works of houses and buildings. THE complainant approached the 1st opposite party and entrusted him with the construction work of 1st floor of his residential building. THEre is elaborate discussion of the work done and amounts received by the 1st opposite party. Exbts. P20 to P23 and P25 to P31 bills and PI 7 to P19, P24 and P32 receipts were relied on by the complainant to prove that he had done unfinished work of 1st floor by employing labourers. However, after analysing these documents, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to only Rs. 5,000/- from the 1st opposite party for unfinished work. Cogent reasons have been stated for this conclusion and we do not find any error. On going through the matter we are not satisfied that there is justification to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. THE amount awarded is quite reasonable. THE respondent-complainant has filed a cross objection but there is no provision for cross objection in Consumer Protection Act. We accordingly dismiss the appeal and cross appeal. Appeals dismissed.