The appellant is a 2^nd opposite party in O.P.No.533/2001 in the file CDRF, Kollam. The appellant along with the 1^st opposite party is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant with future interest at 9% and the compensation of Rs. 3,000/-. 

2. The case of the complainant is that he had a oral contract with the opposite parties for leak free roofing of his building and that a sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid. The work was guaranteed for 15 years. But after the execution of the work the roof is leaking more badly. He has claimed for the return of the amount paid with 18 % interest and Rs.20,000/- as compensation.    

3. The 1^st opposite party had filed a version contending that he had no contract with the complainant and that he is not running any outfit for conducting works of rectifying leaking of roof. He has submitted that it was the 2^nd opposite party who is conducting the concern by name Fiber Tech Industries. According to him the agreement was between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party. According to him the complainant had paid Rs.10,000/- each two times vide cheques issued to State Bank of Travancore, Nediyavila Branch. It is the 1^st opposite party who encashed the cheque and paid the amount to 2^nd opposite party. After the completion of the works the cheque for Rs.20,000/- was also given to the 2^nd opposite party which was also encashed by the 1^st opposite party. The payment etc.. were at Sree Vinayaka Telecommunications situated at Nediyavila. According to him the complainant has to pay 2,000/- more to the 2^nd opposite party. According to him he was a worker under the 2^nd opposite party. Another person by name Azad had also worked along with in executed the work of the leak roofing. According to him it was not account of his defective execution of work but due to the supply of low quality materials by the 2^nd opposite party that resulted in leakage of roof. According to him he executed the work under the supervision of the 2^nd opposite party. The wages to him was paid by the 2^nd opposite party.  

4. The 2^nd opposite party had filed a version denying any agreement with the complainant in respect to leak free roofing. According to him he was made to measure the total roofing area and requested to submit quotation.   He offered to execute the work for a sum of Rs.89,000/- but work was not done by him. Later he come to know that the 1^st opposite party did the work for a lower rate. According to him he did not execute any receipt for having received for Rs.60,000/-. It is also denied that he had given guarantee for 15 years.

5. The evidence adduced consisted the testimony of PWs.1&2, DWs.1 to 3, Exts. P1, X1, C1.

6.   The Forum, on appreciation of evidence found that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are rather playing a game of hide and seek and that stood established from the evidence of PW1 the complainant and PW2 the independent witnesses and Ext.X1 printed notice that the case set up is time.   

7.   We find that Ext.C1 the report of the expert Commissioner in the matter do establish fact that the roof of the complainants building is still leaking.   The Commissioner has reported that more than 47% of the roof is under severe leakage. He has provided split up details of room wise percentage of leakage. The parties have also not raised any serious objection with respect to the findings in Ext.C1.   Hence it stands established that the leak roofing work done is evidently defective.

8.   PW1 has testified with respect to the allegations made in the complaint. He has stated that it was O.P 2 and O.P 1 who came to his house and measured the roof and at the rate of Rs.45 per square feet the charge was agreed upon. According to him he had given two cheques of Rs.25,000/- each and after completion of work Rs.10,000/-also. In the cross examination he has stated that the work was executed under the supervision of the 2^nd opposite party.   According to him the 1^st opposite party and one Azad had worked for the leak proof roofing. He has stated that the agreement was made at the Vinayaka Telecommunications, Nediyavila owned by one Gopinathan Pillai who was examined as PW2. He has also stated that cheques were encashed by the 1^st opposite party. He has denied the case that the 2^nd opposite party had proposed to do the work for the sum of Rs.89,000/-. According to him it is as per the instruction of the 2nd opposite party that the cheques were handedover to the 1^st opposite party.

9. PW2 who is the proprietor of the Sree Vinayaka Telecommunications has stated that it was at his place that the transactions was entered into. He has also produced Ext.X1 a printed notice of Fiber Tech Industries wherein Foreman Enterprises is mentioned as the sister concern of Fiber Tech Industries owned by the 2^nd opposite party. He has stated that the 1^st opposite party is a worker under the 2^nd opposite party. He has also stated that the complainant gave the cheques to the 1^st opposite party to cash. According to him Ext.X1 was given to him by the 1^st opposite party for publicity of the concern of the 2^nd opposite party. DW1 is the 1^st opposite party who has deposed in support of his version that he was a worker under the 2^nd opposite party. He has also supported the case of the complainant as to the agreement   with the 2^nd opposite party. He has stated that the amount agreed upon was Rs.62,000/-. According to him one Azad also worked with him. He was paid work @ Rs.130 per day. He has denied the suggestion that on Babu (DW3) had also work with him. He has also stated that at Vinayaka   Telecommunications that the parties had entered in the agreement. 

10.   DW2 the 2^nd opposite party has denied that he had any agreement with respect to leak proof roofing work. He has not received any amount from the complainant. He has denied that Ext.X1 was printed by him. He has admitted that he is running Fiber Tech Industries and use to execute roof sealing works and that he use to engage workers if he could not manage the work by himself. He has also stated that he measured the roof of the complainant and had offered execute the work for Rs.89,000/-. He has denied that Foreman Enterprises is the sister concern of Fiber Tech Industries. He has admitted that he had distributed printed notice with respect is his business concern by name Fiber Tech Industries only.

11. DW3 is an alleged independent witness examined at the instance of the 2^nd opposite party. He has stated that he had worked under the 1^st opposite party and that he was paid at the rate of Rs.160 per day by the 1^st opposite party. According to him one Azad had also worked with him. He has stated that it was the 1^st opposite party who had agreed the execute the work. He has pleaded ignorance as the suggestion that the materials to execute the work were brought to spot in the jeep of Fiber Tech Industries. 

12.   Ext.P1 is the bill in the letter head of Foreman Enterprises, Sree Vinayaka Telecommunication, Kunnathoor, East P.O. The total amount mentioned for water proofing of the roof is noted as Rs.62,451 ie, 1,387.82 x 45. Advance is mentioned as 55,000. The balance as paid is noted as Rs.6,000/-. Ext.X1 is a printed notice advertising that leak proofing work will be executed with complete responsibility. In the above notice with respect to Fiber Tech Industries it is also mentioned that the Foreman Enterprises is their sister concern. Reading together Ext.P1 and X1 it would appear that the Foreman Enterprises in the letter head of which Ext.P1 bill is issued is also owned by the proprietor of Fiber Tech Industries who is admittedly the 2^nd opposite party. The evidence of PW1 has also supported the testimony of PW2 and also that of DW1, the 1^st opposite party. Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of PW2 to discredit his version. Apparently DW3 is a tutored witness. Although a suggestions was made to DW1 that DW3 also worked with him, DW1 has denied it. Considering the fact that the Forum had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the witnesses we find that in the absence of the patent and manifest illegality it would not be proper to interfere in the realm appreciation of evidence. In the circumstances the decision of the Forum is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

 In the result, the appeal is dismissed.