Case nº Revision Petition No. 107 Of 2011, (Against the Order dated 19/05/2010 in Appeal No. 357/2008 of the State Commission Kerala) of NCDRC Cases, October 20, 2015 (case 1. C. S. Company and Ors. 2. Shri Jagnanatha Prasada 3. K. Venugopal and Anr. Vs 1. K. Venugopal and Anr. 2. Smt. Susheela 3. C. S. Company and Ors.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advocate and Ms. Shilpa M. George, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. G. Prakash, Advocate and Mr. Jishnu M.L., Advocate |
| President | Mr. V.K. Jain, Presiding Member and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | October 20, 2015 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
-
These two revision petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 19.05.2010, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 357/2008, vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order dated 31.04.1998, passed by the District Forum was modified.
-
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants K. Venugopal and Susheela filed consumer complaint in question, saying that the first complainant K. Venugopal entered into an agreement on 24.01.95 with S. Jaganatha Prasad, the Managing Director of the OP construction company for constructing a building having 2035 sq. ft. of area @`250/- per sq. ft. and the total cost of construction was stated to be `5,08,732.50ps. However, the complainant paid a total sum of `7,01,119/- for the said construction. After construction, the keys of the house were handed over to the complainant on 02.02.1998. It has been alleged that a number of defects were noticed by the complainants in the building so constructed. There was leakage in the rooms and dampness on the walls of the building, the timber provided by the complainants was not used in the construction, rather some low quality material was used. The complainant stated that they were entitled to get a compensation of `4.09 lakh from the OP as compensation.
-
The complaint was contested by the OPs by filing a written version before the District Forum in which they alleged that the scope of the work had increased and they were entitled to get a further sum of `3 lakh from the complainant for the said construction.
-
The District Forum vide their order dated 31.01.2001 directed to refund `60,000/- to the complainants with 12% interest from the date of complaint till realisation and also to pay `3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and `2,000/- as cost of proceedings. The order of the District Forum was based on the report of a Local Commissioner Mr. P.J. Kurian, appointed for the purpose. Both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission which were decided vide order dated 06.06.2002 of the State Commission and the matter was remanded to the District Forum with the direction to obtain further details from the Commissioner. It was found that the former commissioner was no more and hence, a new commissioner was appointed. The said Commissioner Geetha S. Nair, filed two reports before the District Forum, one in July 2003 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial