Respondent complainant engaged the services of petitioner for doing the job of modular kitchen, doors and wooden work in three rooms of his house. Three separate agreements were executed between the parties for a consideration of Rs.1,97,875/-. The work was to be completed by 4^th of December 2005. According to the complainant, the petitioner did not finish the work, although he had already paid a sum of Rs.1,38,000/-, which was more than the amount of work done by the petitioner. Despite his repeated requests, petitioner failed to finish the work. It was also alleged that the petitioner had used inferior quality of material. Later on, complainant had to engage the services of some other person to finish the job. He incurred expenses of Rs.73,600/-. Aggrieved by this, complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          The District Forum vide its order dated 26.12.2006 dismissed the complaint by passing a detailed order.

          Dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission.

          The State Commission disposed of the appeal by the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.18,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

The State Commission has not recorded the finding to the effect that the petitioner was deficient in rendering service but still awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/-, i.e., the difference between the amount paid by the respondent for completing the work.

We are not satisfied with the order passed but keeping in view that the amount involved is only Rs.18,000/-, we decline to interfere with the order passed.   However, the direction given by the State Commission to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards costs to the respondent is set aside. Petitioner is directed to pay only Rs.18,000/- within four weeks from today.

We are setting aside the order so far as payment of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards costs without issuing notice to the respondent to avoid litigation expenses.  In case, Respondent is aggrieved by this order, then the respondent is put at liberty to move an application for reopening of the case qua the said amount. With this observation, the revision petition is disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti.