KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 143/2019

JUDGMENT DATED: 15.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 51/2017 of CDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Thomas P.O., S/o P.T. Ouseph, Pathiparamban House, Koratty P.O., Thrissur-680 308.

                             (By Advs. Rajesh Vijayendran & V.K. Prasanth)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

C.A. Pradeep, S/o Ayyappan, Chukkiriyath House, Meloor P.O., Palamury, Thrissur-680 311.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER

The complainant in C.C. No. 51/2017 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (District Forum for short) is the appellant and the opposite party is the respondent.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint and against the impugned order the complainant filed this appeal before this Commission. 

2.  Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant who was working abroad in Oman had entered into an agreement with the opposite party for the cupboard work and finishing work of a villa namely 25 A, Federal Village, Aluva. Since the complainant was working abroad at Sultanate of Oman during the years from 2013 to 2017, the agreement was executed between Sri. A.L Pauly and the opposite party on 15.06.2013, for and on behalf of the complainant wherein the opposite party agreed to finish the work of the cupboard and of the villa for a total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within 70 days from 15.06.2013.  At various stages of the work the opposite party had received a total amount of Rs.2,80,000/- but the opposite party had not completed the work in time despite frequent telephone calls and requests of the complainant.  The opposite party had taken advantage of the absence of the complainant in the country.  The opposite party had been given the finishing work of villa and cupboard work on 15.06.2013.  But the opposite party had failed to complete the work as promised.  On 12.01.2017 the complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party demanding compensation for the damages suffered by him and thereafter filed complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the opposite party to refund Rs.2,80,000/- to the complainant, to pay Rs.9,00,000/- towards expenses incurred by the complainant for taking rented building for his residence, to pay Rs.3,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards costs of these proceedings.

3.  The opposite party remained ex-parte before the District Forum.  The complainant had filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and from his side six documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A6. 

4.  Ext. A1 is the true copy of the agreement between Sri. Pauly A.L., the brother-in-law of the complainant and the opposite party dated 15.06.2013.  The agreement is to do the completion of villa and kitchen work etc. in the villa owned by one Dominic.  The relation between the complainant and Mr. Dominic is not revealed before the District Forum.  The above said Dominic and Pauly was not made the parties in the complaint.  The view of the District Forum is that on that ground the complaint is not maintainable. 

5.  Moreover, as per the terms of Ext. A1 agreement the opposite party had agreed to do kitchen cupboard work, top granite work, kitchen hob and accessories, inner painting and polishing works for a total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-.  The opposite party agreed to do the works within 70 days from the date of agreement i.e; on 15.06.2013.  As per the agreement the opposite party ought to have finished the work by 25^th August 2013.  The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party did not finish the work within the period mentioned above.  Thus the cause of action begins on 25^th August 2013 and ends on 25^th August 2015.  But the complainant has filed the complaint on 30.01.2019 beyond the period of limitation of two years as envisaged in Sec. 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence the District Forum found that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum.  For the above said reasons, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 

6.  Against that order the complainant filed this appeal.  Main contention raised by the appellant is that the respondent/opposite party was ex-parte before the District Forum.  For that reason the District Forum ought to have allowed the complaint on the basis of affidavit and documents produced by the appellant.  But in this case there was nothing to prove the case.  The complainant did not file any commission application to assess the work done by the opposite party etc.  In this case Pauly and Dominic are necessary parties, but the complainant did not make them as parties in this complaint.

7.  The finding of the District Forum is that the complaint is barred by limitation and the agreement is for the work of one Dominic.  We also find that the finding of the District Forum is correct and the complaint is not maintainable.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No order of costs.    

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER  

jb