KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 75/11
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
Inside Interior Designers and Builders,
Rep. by Proprietor Joshy, XXIX/550,
Shree Press Club Road, Thrissur.
(Rep. by Adv. R.S. Kalkura)
Vs
RESPONDENT
Mother Hospital,(P) Ltd.,
Olarikkara P.O., Pullazhi, Thrissur
Rep. by Director,
Dr. Abdul Hakeem, S/o Akbar Ali,
Mother Hospital(P) Ltd, Olarikkara P.o
JUDGMENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated 6.10.2010 of CDRF, Thrissur in O.P. 440/01 is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite party, who is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 93,565/- with 12% interest from the date of the complaint till realization with cost of Rs. 2,000/-
The complainant has approached the Forum below stating that they have entered in to an agreement with the opposite party on 3.3.01 for doing the interior works of the office of the complainant hospital and that an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- was paid . It is the case of the complainant that the works were to be completed on or before 12/04/01 and inspite of paying the full amount, the opposite party abandoned the works and though a lawyer notice was issued, the opposite party did not carryout the works and on this ground the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1lakh as compensation and cost of Rs. 2,000/-
The opposite party in their version contended that though there was an agreement between the parties, there was no deficiency on their part and that the averments in the complaint were false and fictitious. It is also argued that there was a case in the Civil court and it is to counter the case in the civil court that the complainant has approached the Forum with unclean hands.
The evidence consisted of Exts. P1 to P7 on the side of the complainant and R1 to R3 on the side of the opposite party. The Commissioner appointed by the Forum below was examined as Cw1 and his reports were marked as C1 and C1(A).
Heard both sides.
The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party vehementally argued that the order of the Forum below is illegal and unsustainable. It is his very case that the Forum has heavily relied on the Commission Report and has passed the order fastening liability on the opposite party to pay the amount shown in the Commission Report., He has also attacked the Commissioner’s Report on the ground that the Commissioner was not an expert and he has availed the services of another expert who was not appointed by the Forum. It is his further case that the opposite party had left materials worth Rs. 29,992/- in the premises of the complainant and the Forum has lost sight in appreciating the fact that atleast the amount of the materials at site ought to have been deducted while quantifying the amount required for the completion of the work. Thus he advanced the contention that the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand the findings and conclusions of the Forum below were supported by the learned counsel who appeared for the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel submitted before us that the opposite party abandoned the work and by doing so, the complainant was put to much inconvenience and other hardships. It is also his case that the agreement was to complete the work within time and consequent to the abandonment of work, the complainant had to incur more expenses since the value of materials and other cost of labour had increased to a greater extent. Supporting the Commissioner’s report the learned counsel argued for dismissing the appeal thereby confirming the order of the Forum below.
On hearing both sides and also on perusing the records we find that it is admitted by both parties that there was an agreement between the parties for doing the interior works of the complainant hospital and that the works had to be completed within 6 months and the opposite party /appellant had collected Rs. 1,80,000/- from the complainant. On a perusal of Ext. P1 Agreement, we find that it contains the details of works to be done and the payment pattern. Total amount shown is Rs. 1,80,000/- and the opposite party has no case that the complainant has not given the said amount. The Commissioner’s Report is also very clear about the remaining works to be done as per the agreement. The commission has quantified an amount of Rs. 93,565/- for finishing the works as per the plan. All the same he has also stated about the materials that were found stocked in the workshop which amounts to Rs. 20,992/- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that, that amount ought to have been deducted while passing the order. We find force in the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. Though the respondent’s counsel would disagree with the argument of the counsel for the appellant, we find that, that amount shown towards materials ought to have been deducted while directing the opposite party to pay the amount required for completion of the works. Thus it is found that the opposite party/appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 72,573/-(93,565 – 20,992) only.
The Forum below has awarded interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint. The counsel for the appellant has vehemently opposed the award of 12% on the ground that the said rate of interest is on the higher side. We find that the Forum below has not awarded any separate compensation apart from the award of interest. In such a circumstance, it is only just and reasonable that the Forum has ordered 12% interest. The cost of Rs. 2,000/- ordered by the Forum below is sustained.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification that the appellant/opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 72,573/- with 12% interest from the date of complaint till the date of payment with cost of Rs. 2,000/- In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
ST
