(1.) THE unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
(2.) THE complainants who are the residents of Srivilliputhur, entered into an agreement with the opposite party to remodel their house, at the cost of Rs.1,80,000/ -, on 5.6.2002. In the course of work, the opposite party demanded an additional sum of Rs.70000/ - for erecting a new wall, which was also agreed. Now and then, payments were made, and in the month of November 2002, the opposite party received a total sum of Rs.2,38,000/ - from the complainants, exceeding the estimated cost, but failed to complete the construction as agreed, resulting a police complaint also, wherein he had agreed to complete the construction within a month, there also demanding a further sum of Rs.15000/ -, which was paid by the complainant. But, unfortunately, the opposite party failed to complete the remodeling of the house, and therefore the complainants, were compelled to complete the construction, incurring a sum of Rs.73,300/ -. Demanding the amount, notice was issued, which failed to yield any positive result, and therefore for the return of the amount, as well as for compensation, in view of the mental agony, the complainants are constrained to file the case, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,14,925/ -. Thus the claim.
(3.) THE opposite party, accepting the agreement, entered into between the parties, opposed the claim, on the grounds, interalia, that the complainants have not paid the balance amount o Rs.25000/ -, whereas they have paid only a sum of Rs.2,53,000/ -, and that for the recovery of the said sum of Rs.25000/ -, the opposite party filed OP.No.52/2003, which is pending, that the amount claimed under various heads, as compensation are highly imaginary, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
The District Forum, considering the rival contentions of the parties, as well as the dispute regarding the payments, for which a case is also pending, came to the conclusion, that in a summary proceedings, the disputed matter cannot be decided, whereas it requires, elaborate enquiry, not possible under the Consumer Protection Act. In this view, concluding, it may not be proper to decide the case on merit, dismissed the complaint, probably allowing or permitting the complainants, to workout their remedy, before the Civil court. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants have come to this Commission for redressal.;