IMPORTANT POINT
Petitioners who are ill-advised are not entitled to benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 11.04.2014 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 164 of 2014.

2. The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the respondent was the owner of a site, intended to construct a dwelling house and therefore, entered into an agreement on 04.06.2012 with the petitioner/ opposite party for construction of the building for a sum of Rs.31,90,470/-. The petitioner was required to complete the construction within nine months from the date of the agreement. The petitioner did not complete the construction within the agreed period. Therefore, the, respondent sent an e-mail reminding the petitioner requesting to complete the construction. At the request of the respondent, the architect firm cancelled the contract with the petitioner. The respondent has overall paid Rs.2,66,583/- for the work that has been done. After several request made by the respondent and the architect, the petitioner has given no objection certificate to the respondent to appoint any other contract to carry out the remaining work. Thereafter, the respondent entrusted the further construction work to another firm namely Hemadri Constructions as per their estimation and therefore, there was an escalation in the cost of Rs.5,03,772/- compared to the estimated cost which was agreed with the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent was put to loss of Rs.5,03,772/- and he has paid the excess amount of Rs.2,66,583/-. The petitioner has not paid the amount even though he had issued NOC to entrust the construction work to any other contractor. Accordingly, the respondent got issued legal notice on 20.06.2013 calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.10,20,854/- but it went in vain. Therefore, he filed a complaint.

3. In spite of service of notice, the petitioner remained absent and was proceeded ex parte. The District Forum after considering the averments of the complaint, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by the respondent allowed the complaint.

4. The III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 25.11.2013 while allowing the complaint passed the following order:

“The complaint is allowed. It is held that there is deficiency in service by the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.7,70,354/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In case of default, the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest at 12% per annum on the said sum from the date of default, until actual payment. No costs.”

5. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/ opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission. The appeal was filed within a delay of 43 days which was condoned by the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal has observed as under:

“It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the appellant has not received any notice or summons by the DF in complaint no. 1338 of 2013. Since, the appellant has not disputed the address mentioned in the order passed by the DF and in the appeal the very same address has been mentioned. No doubt he has given NOC to the respondent that, he may entrust the work of construction of his building to some other contractor, which clearly indicates that he has not completed the construction work and left in the middle for the reasons best known to him. The complainant has produced the receipts for having paid the excess amount in a sum of Rs.2,66,000/-. There was an escalation in the price of the raw-materials due to delay in completing the construction, which put the respondent to a lot of inconvenience and mental agony. Therefore, the DF has rightly hel