LAWS(NCD)-2017-3-11

MANOHARA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, REPRESENTATIVE BY ITS PROPRIETOR Vs. YOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTATIVE BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, DAPHNE LEAN, D/O. L.J. LEAN YWCA BUILDING, SPENCER JUNCTION, M.G. ROAD, TVPM

Decided On March 02, 2017
Manohara Construction Company, Representative By Its Proprietor Appellant
V/S
Young Womens Christian Association, Representative By Its General Secretary, Daphne Lean, D/O. L.J. Lean Ywca Building, Spencer Junction, M.G. Road, Tvpm Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 19.08.2015, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 20/13, filed by the present respondent, Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) against Manohara Construction Company, vide which, the said complaint was allowed.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the appellants/OPs by filing a written statement before the State Commission, in which they stated that the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as given in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The matter between the parties was essentially in the nature of a civil dispute and hence, only a civil court of competent jurisdiction could take cognisance of the same. The OPs alleged that the complainant wanted to have the Hostel constructed for commercial purpose only. They were already running other similar institutions like the Working Women's Hostel and earning profit from the same.The OPs also stated that at the time of quoting the tender itself, there was an understanding between the parties that a sum of 1 crore will be given to the OPs to stock the entire raw material for the work, so as to avoid escalation in prices at a later stage. The OPs had made all arrangements for raw material, tools, machinery and manpower.There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on their part and they were willing to do the work, provided prompt payment was made by the complainant.

(3.) The State Commission, after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed that refund of Rs. 26,73,147/- be made to the complainant along with interest @12% p.a. with effect from 22.08.2011 till realisation and a cost of Rs.10,000.00 be also paid to them. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the OPs are before this Commission by way of the present first appeal.