KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NOS.231/04 & 378/04

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                        --  PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                      --  MEMBER

APPEAL NO.231/2004

S.Jayagopalan,

S/0 Ammuamma, “Jayaragh”

Muthur.P.O,                                                         -- APPELLANT

Vattakkulam, Ponnani Taluk,

Malappuram Dist.

   (By Adv.N.Manoj kumar & Ors.

          Vs.

V.Sathyanarayanan,

S/0 Sankara Narayana Warrier,

Veethapuram Variyath,                                            --  RESPONDENT

Kuttipala, Vattamkulam.P.O,

Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram Dist.

   (By Adv.P.Chandrasekhar & Ors.)

APPEAL NO.378/04

V.Sathyanarayanan,

S/0 Sankara Narayana Warrier,

Veethapuram Variyath,                                            --   APPELLANT

Kuttipala, Vattamkulam.P.O,

Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram Dist.

   (By Adv. p.a.Ahamed & Ors.)

S.Jayagopalan,

S/0 Ammuamma, “Jayaragh”

Muthur.P.O,                                                         --  RESPONDENT

Vattakkulam, Ponnani Taluk,

Malappuram Dist.

   (By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)

COMMON JUDGMENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER

          Both appeals preferred from the very same order  in OP.4/02 passed by the CDRF, Malappuram on the date of 29^th September 2003.  In appeal No.231/04 the appellant is the complainant and in appeal 378/04 the appellant is the opposite party in the above appeal.  The appellant on 231/04 filed this appeal and to enhance of the compensation ordered by the Forum below.    But the appellant in Appeal 378/04 filed this appeal for set aside the order passed by the forum below.  Both appeal heard in together. 

2. The complainant on  26.6.2000 entered in an agreement with opposite party for renovation of his house at a cost of Rs.2,65,000/-.  An amount of Rs.2,30,000/- is paid in stages.  As the work was not satisfactory, the complainant alleged with Malappuram District Consumer & Family Protection Council at whose presence complainant paid a further sum of Rs.20,000/-.  The work is not completed.  The work is already done is not satisfactory.  Hence this complaint.

3. The opposite party contended in the version that the complainant was interference with the work and he was not able to complete the work.  The complainant used to scold the laborers. The complainant has also required additional work.   Complainant has also not paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- which the complainant alleges to have paid to the opposite party at the instance of the Malappuram  District Consumer & Family Protection Council.  The opposite party is prepared to complete the work  provided  the complainant does not interfere with the progress of the work and pay for the additional work suggested.  Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The forum below relied on Exts.C1 commission report    and this report shows that the amount of Rs.56,547/- is required to complete the said estimated work.  It is further to be shown that the cost of additional work will wok to Rs.9796/-.  The main question is that whether opposite party  is entitled to get this amount o Rs.9796/-.  As there is inordinate delay in the execution of the work and taking into consideration the fact that even now the work is not completed.  The forum below have taken a view that the opposite party is not entitled to get this amount of Rs.9796/-.

5. It is an admitted fact that the amount of Rs.56,547/- is required to complete the work and the work is not completed.  The Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.56,547/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum  from 4.1.02 till realization and cost of Rs.2,000/-  in three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, this Commission heard and perused the entire case records.  We examine the grounds of appeal memorandum of both sides.  But, we are not seeing any apparent error in the order passed by the forum below.  The order passed by the forum below is strictly in accordance with law and evidence and the forum below awarded reasonable compensation, costs and interest.    Unless there is no irregularity or illegality is seeing in the order passed by the forum below, we are not in a position to enhance the order passed by the forum below.  Same way we are not seeing any reason to interfere with the order passed by the forum below and to set aside the impugned order.  We uphold the order passed by the forum below.  We perused the entire records.

In the result, both appeals are dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective dhasti.  The points of appeal discussed and answered accordingly.

 M.K.ABDULLA SONA          --  MEMBER

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

s/L