SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is a complaint for refund an amount of Rs.31,397/-. Compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is working as an engineer in the National Thermal Power Corporation, Kayamkulam. He stated the construction of residential building in March 2002 After completing the plastering of the structure the work in designing, flooring, painting and electrification entrusting the 2nd opp.party. Who is the owner of the first opp.party In pursuant of oral agreement. The opp.parties started the work from January, 2003. As per the terms of the agreement materials were to be purchased and supplied by the opp.parties and laborers are also to be supplied by the opp.parties. Payment were to be by the complainant in advance. A supervisor was appointed by the opp.parties . After five months of work the opp.parties without giving any notice to the complainant stopped the work. When the complainant enquired the reason the 2nd opp.party demanded more money which the complainant was reluctant to give. The complainant thereupon demand the statements of account till date from the opp.party. The 2nd opp.party submitted a statement of account dated 12..7..2003 showing that he is entitled to get Rs.6917/-. The above statement of account a more document the immediate stoppage of work and issuing the sham and false document amounts to unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the complaint. The opp.parties filed a joint version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no consumer dispute involved in this complaint. The opp.parties are engaged in the construction work for the as several years. The work usually were undertaken on the basis of written agreement.. But due to the compulsion of the complainant this opp.party have under taken the partly finished work on the basis of an oral agreement. As per the agreement the material were purchased only after convincing the complainant of the quality, quantity and price charged. Periodically statements were prepared in rich details showing materials purchased and these statements were duly signed by the complainant after verification. The complainant The complainant never any dissatisfaction regarding the price quality or anything else. As per the statement furnished by the opp.party a sum of Rs.6917 is due him from the complainant. The comp0lainant though agreed to pay the amount as per the statement of account do not pay the amount deliberately and when the opp.party that initiated legal action this complaint was filed. The opp.parties never issued any shamp or any false demands. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint with their costs. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable ? 2. Whether there is deficiency in service? 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. P1 to P9 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Points:1 The main contention of the opp.party is that this complaint is not maintainable as there is no Consumer Dispute involved in this case. The first prayer in the complaint itself is for refund of a sum of rupees received in excess with interest from the opp.parties and not compensation for any defect or deficiency in the work.. It is not disputed that the parties entered into an oral agreement for the work in the building being constructed by the complainant. When the complainant says that huge sums are due from the opp.parties to him, the opp.party would demand Rs.6970/- as the balance amount due to him from the complainant. From the rival contentions it is obvious that the dispute herein relates to settlement of account and not any Consumer dispute. It is well settled that when the complaint relates to recovery of money not relating to deficiency in service, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint. Admittedly the prayer in this complaint is for recovery the amount received by the opp.party in excess from the complainant. Such a dispute as pointed out earlier cannot be said to be a consumer dispute. The National Commission has held that “When complainants claim is not based upon deficiency of service and they are seeking to recover money. The complaint is not cognizable by Consumer Forum”. 1994 [1]CPR 459. So we find that there is no consumer disputes involved in this case and therefore this complaint is not maintainable. Point found accordingly. Points II The complainant would allege that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opp.parties. In fact the complainant as PW.1 has admitted in cross examination at page 3 that there is no defects in the work carried out by the opp.party. Opp.party work H tr\sfb\djhkA rUorfdlnjv\vfluj}k\eglfjukn\Sml? [a] Th\h Then what is the deficiency in service in the work carried out by the opp.party? Ext.P1 is the statement of accounts furnished by the opp.party to the complainant. A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the statement of account has been verified by the complainant and recorded satisfaction. If that be so one is at a loss to understand as to how deficiency in service or unfair trade practice,can be attributed on the opp.parties. It is also pertinent to point out that the complainant who claims that the opp.party abruptly stop the work and left without completing the same did not make any attempt to prove the contention by taking out a commission or appointing an expert. So the contention that the opp.parties abandoned the work without completing the same is unfounded. It is also worth pointing out in this context that though Ext.P1 Statement of accounts was furnished by the opp.party as early as on 12.7.2003 this complaint was filed only on 3.5.04. Had there been any bonafide grievance, the complainant would have filed the same immediately and from the delay in filing the complaint the lacks of bonafides can be inferred. According to the opp.party this complaint is filed as a counter blast to the litigation likely to be initiated by the opp.party for the balance amount due to him from the complainant which seems quite probable. In the light of the candid admission of the complainant in cross examination at page 3 that there is no defect or deficiency in the work carried out by the opp.party the contention that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opp.parties is unsustainable. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed . No costs. Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009. . I n d e x List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Gopakumaran Nair PW.2. – Dineesh Ahamed List of documents for the complain ant P1. – Statement of Account P2. - Purchase list P3. – Bills for the painting materials P4. – Quotation P5. – Another quotation P6. – Third quotation[ Modern Electricals] P7. – Quotation [Oriental plywood and Glass Emporium] P8. – Quotation from Sheeba Glass Emporium, Kilimolloor, Kollam. P9. – Way Bill List of witness for the opp.parties DW.1. – Shameer. | 
