Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin, President— This complaint was filed by COINPAR (Centre of India Consumer Protection and Research) represented by its Secretary General, which is a registered Society under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1995, alongwith the second complainant who is the father of the consumer and he is authorised to represent the consumer.

2. Shortly stated, the allegations in the complaint are as follows :

The opposite parties 1 and 2 entered into a service agreement on 2.5.1995 with Koshy Samuel, son of the second complainant where under the opposite party agreed for construction of a dwelling house at Nalanchira in the property owned by the aforesaid Koshy Samuel comprised in Survey No. 877/6B at the rate of Rs. 325/- per square foot. A written guarantee to complete the construction as per the schedule and payments was also made. The second complainant was instrumental in making the payments and getting endorsement of the opposite party. A total amount of Rs. 5,15,000/- was paid. The work was supervised by the 3rd opposite party and the monetary transactions were done at Thiruvananthapuram. The work so far completed by the first and second opposite parties is valued by the 3rd opposite party at Rs. 3,97,391/-. The first and second opposite parties did not turn up for work inspite of repeated requests from the second complainant. The second complainant wrote a letter on 10.10.1996 calling upon the first and second opposite parties to complete the remaining -work. A copy of the said letter was marked to Sri. K.A. Abraham who was a witness to the agreement. Reminders, personal meetings and pursuasions did not evoke any response from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The second complainant approached the first complainant to ventilate their grievance and to sort out and settle the same and accordingly the first complainant issued a notice to the first and second opposite parties calling upon them to refund the excess collection and to pay damages to the consumers. But opposite parties 1 and 2 did not co-operate and hence the complaint.

3. The complainants alleged that this would amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and it caused mental agony, injury, hardship and loss to the consumers. In the circumstances the complainant claimed refund of Rs. 1,17,609/- which was collected in excess and to award compensation for injury and cost escalations amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- together with interest @ 15% from 2.4.1996.

4. Though we issued notice to the opposite parties, the first and second opposite parties did not claim notice. Though we could have treated this as sufficient service, we directed the complainants to effect substituted service by publication in News Paper and accordingly publication was effected in the Malayala Manorama daily in its issue dated 23rd July, 1997 informing the opposite parties of posting and also stating that in their absence the case will be decided on the assumption that they have no dispute.

5. Pursuant to the notice the third opposite party appeared and filed a version stating that he supervised the work. It was also stated that the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not complete the work and abandoned the work and the third opposite party assessed to total work carried out by the opposite parties 1 and 2 at Rs. 3,99,390/- and no relief was sought against him.

6. The following points arise for consideration :

(1) Whether the opposite parties 1 and 2 have committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in the matter of construction of dwelling house of Koshy Samuel, the son of the second complainant ?

(2) What is the relief, if any, to which the complainant is entitled ?

(3) What is the order as to cost ?

7. The second complainant filed an affidavit in terms of the allegation in the complaint. Exts. P1 to P6 were also marked on behalf of the complainant. It is stated in the affidavit that the work was supervised by the 3rd o