KERALASTATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.173/01 JUDGMENT DATED:30/6/2008 PRESENT:- SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Santhosh, S/o. Vasu Pillai, residing at Sankaramangalathu Veedu, APPELLANT Pathumuri, Murikkady PO. Kumaly. (By Adv.P.S.Suresh Kumar) Vs J.Lalithamma, L.H.I., PH.C. : RESPONDENT Vandiperiyar (By Adv.K.P.Jayachandran) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 29/11/00 passed by CDRF, Idukki in OP No.74/99. The complaint was filed alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not completing the construction of house building on behalf of the complainant. The opposite party filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. But the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant to a large extent and thereby passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- representing the amount received by the opposite party from the complainant and also a compensation of Rs.10,000/- with a cost of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by the opposite party. 2. When their appeal was taken for final hearing there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that no agreement was executed by the appellant/opposite party and that the complainant has not succeeded in establishing her case regarding payment of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of construction. Thus, the appellant requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? (2) Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP.74/99 ? 4. Points 1 and 2 :- The case of the complainant is that she entrusted the work of construction of a house building with the opposite party and thereby opposite party agreed to construct the building at the cost of Rs.85,000/-and that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- as advance towards the cost of construction. But the opposite party abandoned the work without completing construction of the building. On the other hand, the opposite party (appellant) would contend that there was no such agreement as alleged and that he did not receive a sum of Rs.50,000/- as alleged by the complainant. 5. The complainant has given evidence as PW1 and she deposed in support of the case regarding the execution of P1 agreement. It is admitted by the opposite party (DW1) that the stamp paper on which P1 agreement is written was purchased by him. He also admitted his signature found on the 1st page of P1 agreement. A perusal of the 1st page of P1 agreement would make it clear that the opposite party had entered into an agreement with the complainant for construction of a building at a cost of Rs.85,000/- and that the opposite party received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance. The Forum below had an opportunity to witness the demeanour of the parties to the complaint. The Forum below had also made a compensation of the disputed signature in P1 agreement with the admitted signatures of the opposite party and that the Forum below came to the conclusion that P1 agreement had been executed by the opposite party with the complainant with respect to the construction of a building for the complainant. The Forum below is justified in holding that P1 agreement was entered into between the complainant and opposite party for the purpose of constructing the building for the complainant. 6. The evidence on record especially P1 agreement would establish the case of the complainant that the opposite party received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance towards the cost of construction of the building. At the instance of the complainant an Advocate Commissioner was deputed and his submitted C1 report. The aforesaid Advocate Commissioner has been examined as CW1. From the side of the opposite party an expert was appointed to assess the work done and the expert submitted R1 report. The Forum below appraised the contents of C1 Commission report and R1 expert report and rightly concluded that sum of Rs.42,000/- had been spent for constructing the building in a half way. It is come out in evidence that the complainant had effected some work and the cost of that work has been calculated and fixed at Rs.4,000/-. So, the cost of work done by the opposite party as fixed by the Forum below can be treated as just and proper. The opposite party is legally bound to refund a sum of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant. The materials on record would justify the order passed by the Forum below directing the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.12,000 to the complainant. No doubt that the opposite party enjoyed the aforesaid amount for a pretty long time and so the opposite party is legally bound to pay interest on the said sum of Rs.12,000/- The Forum below fixed the interest on that amount @ 12 % per annum. Hence, the order directing the opposite party to refund the said sum of Rs.12,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum is legally sustainable. 7. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/ as compensation. The Form below allowed the same. We are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Forum below is on the higher side. Especially, in view of the interest awarded on said of sum of Rs.12.000/-. We are of the view that a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation will meet the at the ends of Justice. So, the compensation of Rs.10,000 awarded by the Forum below is reduced Rs.5,000/-. The cost of Rs.500/- ordered by the Forum below is just and proper and the same is upheld. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified as indicated above. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed partly. Thereby the appellant/opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the impugned order passed by the Forum below till the date of realization with a cost of Rs.500/-. The appellant/opposite party is also directed to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the respondent/complainant. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER PK. | 
