KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
COMMON ORDER IN REVISION PETITION NOs.19/05 AND 20/05
ORDER DATED: 29/11/2010
PRESENT
JSUTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
REVISION PETITION 19/2005
Eapen George, : REVISION PETITIONER
Proprietor,
V.E.G.Structurals,
Valayanchirangara.P.O.,
Vengola, Perumbavoor.
(By Adv. S.Reghukumar)
Vs.
Tomy, : RESPONDENT
Parathattil(H),
Muthalakkudam.P.O.,
Thodupuzha.
(By Adv. Rex Jacob)
REVISION PETITION 20/2005
Eapen George, : REVISION PETITIONER
Proprietor,
V.E.G.Structurals,
Valayanchirangara.P.O.,
Vengola, Perumbavoor.
(By Adv.S.Reghukumar)
Vs.
O.V.Jose, : RESPONDENT
Oledathil(H),
Muthalakkudam.P.O.,
Thodupuzha.
(By Adv. Rex Jacob)
ORDER
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The above revision petitions are filed by the judgment debtor/opposite party in OP.254/03 and in OP.167/03 before the CDRF, Idukki. The Forum below had allowed the case of the complainant in OP.254/03 and OP.167/03 and EPs were filed by the complainant/Decree holder for the implementation of the orders and consequently the Forum below passed directions to the opposite party/judgment debtor to rectify the mistakes to the satisfaction of the complainant. However it seems that evenafter the rectification works by the opposite party, the complainant was dissatisfied and hence he approached the Forum for further directions to cure defects/repairs and comply with the orders within a further period of 15 days. At this stage the opposite party/judgment debtor filed petition Nos.35/04 in OP.254/03 and.36/04 in OP.167/03 which were disposed of by a direction to the opposite party to rectify the existing leakage also to the satisfaction of the complainant within a further period of one month and it is against these directions in the IAs that the present revision petitions are filed by the judgment debtor/opposite party. 2. After admitting the revision petitions this Commission had appointed a commissioner vide order dated 30.6.07 to inspect and report the defects/the leak in the roofs as alleged by the complainants/respondents and the report of the commissioner(Advocate Davi Cherian) is also considered by this Commission at the final stage of hearing.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both cases vehemently argued before us that the opposite party/judgment debtor had perfectly complied with the directions contained in the order in Ops 254/03 and 167/03 to the satisfaction of the complainant and it was with ulterior motives that the complainants had approached the Forum with the false grievances that the opposite party had not complied with the directions of the Forum to the full satisfaction of the complainant. He submitted before us that one of the complainants had disposed of the building and the other complainant had put up a tin roof over the terrace and in such a situation repairing the roofings in the present stage, especially after the lapse of so many years, will be impossible and useless.
4. We have cast our anxious consideration on the commission report filed byMr.Davy Cherian, Advocate who himself is a civil engineer also. On a careful reading of the report we find that the commissioner had conducted a thorough inspection regarding the leaking problems and he had suggested various methods for curing the defects. But he had also reported that that leakage may occurr after few years evenafter such rectifications are done and the most viable one is to use Dr.Fixit with minimum cost depending upon the thickening of membrane. It is further reported that in both houses tin sheet roofing over steel truss had already been provided except a very small portion and the house in question in revision petition 19/05, had already been sold in the present conditions itself. He has also stated that as steel sheet roofing has been done, there is no meaning in employing other methods after dismantling the steel roofing.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both revisions and also on perusing the records, we find that even the commissioner had reported that there was no perfect curing of the leakage by the opposite party/judgment debtor/revision petitioner. It is also seen that one of houses had already been sold and in as is where in condition. At this stage we do not think it proper to direct the revision petitioner to redo everything and to rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainants/respondents. We feel that evenif a direction is given to judgment debtor, the complainants will not be satisfied and there is every chance of further litigation in the matter. In the said circumstances we find that an order to direct the opposite party/judgment debtor/revision petitioner to pay compensation for the deficiency in service will be just and proper to meet the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner had rectified the defects to the satisfaction of the complainants and it is only to grab more money from the judgment debtor/revision petitioner that the complainants had approached the Forum with unclean hands. We are not inclined to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to the full extent. But we feel that the judgment debtor/revision petitioner had tried his best to rectify the defects and in the facts and circumstances of the present stage we feel that the judgment debtor/ revision petitioner is liable to pay compensation to the complainants as detailed below.
In the result the revision petitions are allowed in part thereby the revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs.25000/- each to the complainant in Op 254/03 and in OP.167/03 within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amounts shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint till date of payment. The facts and circumstances of the present revision petitions warrant no order as to costs.
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JSUTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ps
