STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/208/2020 SHAHEER N S PRESENT ADDRESS - NANDANATHU THUNDIYIL,THAMMANAM,ERNAKULAM,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SAINUDEEN PRESENT ADDRESS - AANIYAVEETTIL,IRAVON(PO),KONNI,PATHANAMTHITTA-

689691,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

SHAHEER N S, NARAYAN R (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SAINUDEEN DATED: 27/03/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 208/2020 ORDER DATED: 27.03.2026 (Against the Order in C.C. 189/2017 of DCDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER APPELLANT:

Shaheer N.S., Nandanathu Thundiyil, Thammanam, Ernakulam (By Adv. Narayan R.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Sainudheen A.M., Aaniyaveettil, Iravon P.O., Konni, Thazham Village, Pathanamthitta-689 691 (By Adv. B. Vijayakumar)

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.189/2017 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant made an understanding with the opposite party for the construction of a residential building in the property of the son of the complainant having an extent of 15 cents in Pathanamthitta village as per the approved plan. The complainant paid an advance consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the opposite party on 06.03.2017. However, after receiving the advance consideration, the opposite party did not do any substantial work apart from doing some minor work in the property. Even though the complainant had repeatedly requested the opposite party to complete the construction work, the opposite party abandoned the work and left the place. In the said circumstances, the complainant had to get the work completed by another contractor. The opposite party had done the work only for an amount of Rs.2,07,000/-. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

3. The opposite party filed a written version admitting the receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant. However, the opposite party contended that the opposite party had done the work for an amount of Rs.10,49,569/-. The estimate in this regard was also issued to the complainant. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.49,569/- was due to the opposite party from the complainant. The foundation was completed by the opposite party with the above said amount. The complainant never supplied the materials for the construction as contended in the complaint. The opposite party did not violate the terms of agreement with the owner. The opposite party was prepared to complete the construction work if the owner co-operated with him. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

4. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A4 series were marked for the complainant. DW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked for the opposite party. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.7,93,000/- to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order. The District Commission further directed the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the complainant.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party has submitted that the District Commission had entered into a finding against the opposite party without having any material to support the said finding and, in the said circumstances, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appel