The National Commission emphasized its limited revisional jurisdiction, requiring clear jurisdictional errors for interfering with concurrent findings of fact from lower forums.

1. This revision petition has been filed under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') against the order dated 30.4.2014 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 603 of 2013.

2. The brief facts of the case, culled from the records are that the respondent had entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 9.12.2011 to construct a residential building on re - survey No. 76 of 2013 in Koipuram Village, Kumbanad PO, Pathanmthitta District, Kerala which was owned and possessed by the respondent. The petitioner adopted the Ferro Technology method of construction of the building which was a cost effective and time saving technology. Convinced that the petitioner was very skilled and experienced in the relevant field, the respondent entrusted the construction work to the petitioner. It is also stated that the respondent was himself a retired engineer. According to the agreement dated 9.12.2011 the total plinth area of the proposed construction was approximately 1846 square feet and the total cost for the construction was Rs.17,54,100. The respondent states that while he was strictly adhering to the provisions of the agreement dated 9.12.2011, from the very beginning of the construction the petitioner did not show any sincerity to the works and purposefully lagged the construction. The respondent has paid Rs.12,00,000 to the petitioner in connection with the said construction. The respondent requested the petitioner in person, through letters and mediators on several occasions to complete the work as per the agreement. However, the petitioner has not heeded the request of the respondent. The respondent therefore, terminated the agreement.

3. The respondent has stated that the petitioner has completed only 35% of the total work and collected an amount of Rs.3,50,000 in excess from the respondent. He further states that major works of the buildingremain in complete. He further states that if the construction is not completed within a short span of period, the construction cost will rise higher and will adversely affect the financial condition of the respondent. It is alleged that the delay caused in the construction was only due to the negligent acts of the petitioner. The civil construction works completed are alleged to be of poor quality. The respondent brought to the notice of the petitioner, defects in sun shades, air holes, electrical junction box, switch boxes not in alignment, defective wall plastering, car porch, sit outs and other works on the ground floor which were balance till date. It is alleged that the petitioner did not apply epoxy primer on the steel structure before applying plaster which will affect the structural stability of the building. In order to cure these defects the petitioner sought a further Rs.2,00,000 from the respondent. As the above mentioned defects were noted by the respondent, he requested the petitioner to rectify the same. However, the petitioner failed to cure the said structural defects.Due to these deficiencies of the petitioner, the respondent and his family members suffered mental agony and is presently residing in a rented accommodation at Kumbanad on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000. Non - completion of the respondent's residential building by the petitioner within the time frame amounts to deficiency in service. The respondent further states that the petitioner has abandoned the works of therespondent since 9.6.2012. Hence, the respondent has prayed the following relief from the petitioner:
(a) Release an amount of Rs.3,50,000 which was excessively collected by the opposite party from the petitioner with 12% interest;
(b) Release an amount of Rs.2,00,000 from t