By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of complainant is that the complainant and the respondent entered into an agreement on 3.3.01 by which the respondent undertaken to do the interior work of the office of complainant hospital as per the drawing and quotation submitted along with the agreement. It was stipulated that the work will be completed on or before 12.4.01. The respondent had not completed the work but had received the entire amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The complainant had been contacted with the respondent several times and at last forced to send a lawyer notice. But no remedy so far. Hence the complaint. 2. The counter filed by the respondent is that the documents to evidence that the complainant hospital is a private limited company and that the complainant is competent to file a complaint in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum have not been produced. The complainant alleges that there is a karar dt. 3.3.01 between the complainant and respondent. The respondent holds that this alleged karar is not binding upon the parties since the complainant is incompetent to enter into a karar binding the company. The respondent has not been properly remunerated for the work done by him. The allegation that the complainant has paid Rs.1,80,000/- to the respondent is to be proved by the complainant. As soon as the notice was received the respondent contacted the complainant at his office and explained everything. The allegation that this respondent did not hold fast to the date stipulated in the agreement is not true. This respondent does not admit that the complainant has had any inconvenience caused at the hands of this respondent. There was no deficiency in service and the allegation that the complainant has sustained loss amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- is not true. The whole petition is based on an agreement and the violation of the terms attracts the Civil Court. So this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence dismiss. 3. The points for consideration are: (1) Was there any deficiency in service from respondent? (2) If so, reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P7, R1 to R3, Exts. C1 and C1(a) and the oral testimony of CW1. 5. Points: The complaint is filed to get completion of the work entrusted to the respondent and also compensation. It is the case of complainant that there was an agreement on 3.3.01 by which the respondent was undertaken to do the interior work of the office of the Mother Hospital as per the drawing and quotation submitted along with the agreement with a stipulation that the work will be completed on or before 12.4.01. But the respondent failed to complete the work. The respondent filed counter by denying the case of complainant. 6. The complainant produced Exts. P1 to P7 and Ext. P1 is the agreement executed between the complainant and the respondent. It would show that the work to be completed within 12.4.01. It is true that the entire consideration of the work was fixed for Rs.1,80,000/- and the amounts were received by the respondent on various dates and the documents are produced and marked as Ext. P4 series. There is no dispute with regard to the acceptance of the amount. The respondent stated that there is no deficiency in service on his part. The respondent mainly contended the technicalities and no serious contentions raised. 7. The Counsel for respondent argued that there was direction to CW1 to inspect the premises of the respondent and to file report. But instead of that CW1 inspected the premises of complainant and submitted report. The Advocate Commissioner examined as CW1. During examination the Counsel for respondent asked about this aspect only. The clarification to the contents of the report is not stressed by Counsel for respondent. It is true that in the direction from the Forum it is written as respondent’s premises instead of complainant’s premises. In the commission application filed by the complainant it is specifically stated to inspect the disputed premises of complainant. The mistake in the commission warrant is only a clerical mistake on the part of staff of Forum and it cannot be taken seriously. The respondent did not file any application to inspect his premises and there is no need at all since the dispute is in the premises of complainant. 8. The respondent filed application I.A.417/09 stating that the complainant is not a consumer and to be dismissed on that ground. It is stated in the application that the complainant hospital is a private limited company and running for commercial purposes and also have nursing college and other institutions. So the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum since it is running for commercial purposes. The complaint is filed in the year 2001 and very well before the Amendment Act 2002. The Act was amended in the year 2002 and the amendments came into effect on 15.3.03. The amendments have no retrospective effect and only after the amendment came into force the services for commercial purposes except for earning livelihood by means of self employment by a consumer have been taken out of the purview of the Act. So this contention of the respondent will not lie. The complainant is a consumer and the complaint is very well maintainable before the Forum. 9. Going to the merits of the case it is to be decided only the deficiency in service if any from respondent. Ext. C1 and Ext. C1(a) are the commission reports filed before the forum. Ext. C1 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner and Ext. C1(a) is the report of expert. CW1 the Advocate Commissioner reported that the respondent failed to act as per the terms of the karar. The difficulties caused to the complainant by the incompletion of the work also reported by CW1. There is not any challenge on the points reported by CW1 and the respondent filed application to set aside commission report only on the clerical error committed by the Forum. 10. As per Ext. C1(a) the details of materials used and cost for the work already done are stated as Rs.55,000/-. The details of work done, the total cost of work as per plan etc. are reported by expert commissioner in detail and no objection is seen filed. It is a report of expert and nothing to disbelieve. In the report, the expert also stated that the work to be finished as per plan costs Rs.93,565/-. So it is clear that the respondent had accepted excess amount than the actual price for the work done by him. It was serious deficiency in service on his part and he is liable to return the amount with interest to the complainant. 11. In the result, the complaint stands allowed and the respondent is directed to return Rs.93,565/- (Rupees ninety three thousand five hundred and sixty five only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation with costs Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Since interest is allowed no separate compensation is necessary. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 6th day of October 2010.
| | [HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member | | 
