KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.3/08 JUDGMERNT DATED 22.9.09 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER R.Kunjukrishnan, Sreekailasam, Palamukku, Anchal,P.O, -- APPELLANT Pin 691 306. Vs. 1. Sri.Sivadasan Jayakumar, PoikavilaVeedu, Eram, Thadikkadu.P.O, Anchal – 691 306. 2. Sivadasan, -- RESPONDENT PoikavilaVeedu, Eram, Thadikkadu.P.O, Anchal – 691 306. JUDGMERNT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 25th January 07 passed by CDRF, Kollam in CC.No.316/06. The Complaint therein was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondents 1 and 2 as opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Inspite of service of notice on the opposite parties 1 and 2 there was no representation on behalf of the opposite parties and thereby the Forum below declared them ex-parte and they remained so. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1and P2 documents were produced from the side of the complainant. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below found the first opposite party as deficient in service. Thereby, passed the impugned order directing the first opposite party to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation with 9% interest and cost of Rs.500/-. No order has been passed against the second opposite party. The complainant therein was not fully satisfied with the impugned order passed by the forum below. Hence the present appeal to get an order against the second opposite party also. In this appeal also notice was issued to respondents 1 and 2; but they remained absent. The appellant who appeared in person was heard. He submitted that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and so the Forum below cannot be justified in exonerating the second opposite party from the liability to pay compensation to the complainant. It is further submitted that no property is owned by the first opposite party and so the complainant is not in a position to realize the compensation from the first opposite party. It is also argued that the opposite parties 1 and 2 undertook to execute the work for constructing a shed for rearing goats and that the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to execute the work as agreed. Thus, the appellant/complainant requested to make both the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation due to the complainant. 2. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Where there is any evidence or circumstance available on record to fasten the liability on the second opposite party (second respondent) to pay compensation to the complainant for the alleged deficiency in service? 2. Whether the Forum below can be justified in absolving the second opposite party from the liability to pay compensation to the complainant? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.1.07passed by CDRF, Kollam in CC.No.316/06? 3. POINTS 1 TO 3:- The complainant has given evidence in support of his complaint in CC.316/06. The complainant relied on P1 and P2 documents. Ext.P1 is the agreement dated 30th June 2006 entered into between the appellant/complainant and the first respondent/first opposite party Jayakumar. As per P1 agreement, the first opposite party Jayakumar agreed to refund the price of the materials worth Rs.10,584/- and Rs.675/- which the first opposite party received by way of labor charge for constructing the shed for rearing goats. There is no whisper in P1 agreement regarding the involvement of second opposite party Sivadasan (second respondent). Ext.P2 is the 2 cash bills issued for purchase of steel materials and other accessories worth Rs.10584/-. A perusal of the complaint in CC 316/06 would also make it clear that the transaction regarding construction of goat shed was entered into between the appellant/complainant and the first respondent/first opposite party. There is nothing on record to give an indication that the second respondent/second opposite party had any role to play in the said transaction. Thus, the facts, circumstance and evidence on record would only show the involvement of the first respondent/first opposite party in the transaction. The evidence would also establish the fact that there was deficiency in service on the part of the first respondent/first opposite party. So, the Forum below is fully justified in passing the impugned order against the first opposite party alone. The Forum below is also perfectly justified in absolving the second opposite party Sivadasan from the liability to pay compensation to the complainant. We do not find any reasonable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. So, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence we do so. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 25.1.07 passed by CDRF; Kollam in CC 316/06 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, there will be no order as to costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER S/L
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
