Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member and Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member
M/s. Samagratha Holistic
Homes and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Chacko N.C. – Respondent
Revision Petition No.360 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 30th July 2015 in Appeal 683/2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kerala)
Decided on 8.7.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Real estate – Renovation Agreement – Default in payment after completion of work – Complaint allowed by Fora below – Respondent has failed to pay due instalments – Wife of respondent had obstructed in completing work as she wanted to complete work through a new contractor which was stated to be relative of respondent – State Commission has rightly observed that there was clear case of deficiency of service on part of opposite parties – District Forum and State Commission have given concurrent findings and scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited – National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence led by parties like an appellate court – No reason to interfere in impugned judgment passed by State Commission and Order passed by District Forum which are well reasoned. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.—The respondent/complainant/Chacko N.C. (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent” filed the Consumer Complaint bearing C.C. No.179 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) against the petitioners/opposite parties namely M/s. Samagratha Holistic Homes and Ms/Annamma Abraham (hereinafter referred to as the “the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2”) by pleadings that the respondent had entered into an agreement with opposite party No.1 on 22.02.2012 for extension and renovation of the residential building of the respondent and the work has to be completed within a period of six months from the date of fixing of door frames as per the agreement dated 22.02.2012. The respondent had paid Rs.16,50,000/- to the opposite party No.1and 2 in terms of the agreement dated 22.02.2012 @ Rs.1,550/- per sq. ft. The opposite parties could not complete the construction work in terms of the agreement dated 22.02.2012 within the stipulated time and as such the respondent filed a Complaint before Circle Inspector Office at Thiruvalla. The opposite party had agreed to complete the remaining work within 75 days from 09.05.2012 but the opposite parties did not materialize their assurance. The opposite parties have abandoned the work of the respondent without any reasonable cause and have only completed the work worth Rs.8,00,000/-. The opposite party no 1 & 2 have collected Rs.8,50,000/- in excess from the respondent which the opposite party no 1 & 2 are liable to return along with interest @ 12% p.a. The non-completion of the work within the stipulated time in terms of agreement dated 22.02.2012 amounts to deficiency in service. The respondent being aggrieved filed the present complaint and made the following prayers:—
a. Realise an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees eight lakh fifty thousand only) with 12% interest from the Opposite Party and his assets.
b. Realise an amount of Rs.25,000/- (rupees Twenty five thousand only) which spent by the Petitioner for the concerting of sit out from the Opposite Party and his assets.
c. Realise an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony sufferings and distress to the Petitioner.
d. Allow to realise the cost of this petition and
e. Such other relief’s that can be granted in the context of this petition.
2. The opposite party No.1 filed the written version wherein stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the parties and is not maintainable. It was further stated that an agreement was executed between the respondent and the opposite party on 22.02.2012 for extension and renovation work of the first and the second floor in the building of the respondent. The work was designed on the basis of European photography provided by the respondent and the opposite party had entered into a clear agreement specifying the advance amounts to be paid at each stage and the work shall be carried out as per the receipt of the advance amount. Ms. Jassy Chacko @ Annamma Chacko who was the wife of the respondent was entrusted with the payment as per agreed scheduled but has defaulting in payment for the work. The opposite party no 1 & 2 have completed the work as per the payment made to them. Annamma Chacko, wife of the respondent has made a frivolous complaint before Circle Inspector of Police wherein contended that remaining work was to be executed by one Jose, another contractor and a family friend of the respondent but on investigation it was found that main roof concreting as per the 3rd stage specifications in the agreement was over and the Circle Inspector of Police has directed Annamma Chacko, wife of the respondent to pay Rs.2 lakhs but she paid only paid only Rs.50,000/. The respondent also denied other allegations as levelled in the complaint and prayed that the complaint be dismissed
National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence led by parties like an appellate court.
The National Commission emphasized its limited revisional jurisdiction, requiring clear jurisdictional errors for interfering with concurrent findings of fact from lower forums.
1) Cancellation of the Residential House by the Petitioner, instead of correction of defect in the building and further allotment of the same to the third party, certainly amounts to deficiency in se....
Absence of Evidence – In the absence of evidence produced by the complainant in the form of terms of contract entered into between the parties, bills for such alleged items procured in excess, and ev....
Absence of prayer “ Even in absence of specific prayer, this commission can grant a relief which is justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
