SHAN CONSTRUCTION AND ANOTHER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTOR, T.C. 15/1647, MINJIN ROAD, THYCAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. K.I. ASHA T.C. C1/2924, VALIYAVEEDU LANE, KAMALESWARAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, by a Civil Engineer and Contractor (Opposite Party in the Complaint), is directed against the order dated 24.7.2009, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.460/2003. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while affirming the order dated 4.4.2003, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram (for short "the District Forum"), in O.P. No.140/2002 on the merits of the Complaint, has reduced the compensation of Rs.30,000.00, awarded by the District Forum, in addition to the direction to refund to the Complainant a sum of Rs.2,10,000.00 along with future interest at the rate of 14.5%.

(2.) The short grievance of the Petitioner herein is that the amount of Rs.8,32,956.50, claimed to have been paid by the Complainant to him for the renovation and construction of the first floor of a residential house, was not paid to him as consideration for construction purpose but for procuring the raw material on behalf of the Complainant for construction of the first floor in the existing building. It was also the case of the Petitioner that there was no written agreement between the parties, whereby the Petitioner had contracted for the said construction.

(3.) Having heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, we are of the view that there is no substance in the present Revision Petition. It is evident from the Appendix to the order passed by the District Forum that in support of her claim in the Complaint that despite payment of the afore-noted amount, the Petitioner had failed to complete the construction, the Complainant had placed on record a number of receipts issued by the Petitioner, acknowledging the receipt of the said payment from time to time. However, the said receipts have not been placed on record by the Petitioner. Be that as it may, the concurrent finding of fact, relating to deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in completing the construction, for which he had received substantial amount, being based on cogent material, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting our interference in the Revisional jurisdiction.