M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The respondent in this appeal, as complainant, sought certain reliefs against opposite party, alleging defective construction, for which claiming compensation on various grounds, which was opposed by the appellant/ opposite party.
(2.) After marking certain documents, evaluating the materials (as stated so), an order came to be passed by the District Forum, which reads as follows: In the result Er. L. Balaji, Chartered Civil Engineer and Government Approved Valuer is requested to assess the amount required to set right the defects point out in the report of Engineer Mr. S.P. Srinivasan within two weeks from the date of communication of this order to him and the opposite party is directed to pay the amount so assessed by the Engineer within one month from the date of above estimation report, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till payment. Further, the opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.25000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and pain and to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost to the complainant considering the extensive expenses incurred by the complainant towards commission fees. Time for compliance one month from the date of this order.
(3.) As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondent/ complainant Mr.V. Balaji, there is no final assessment of compensation, and what are the defect occurred in the construction etc., and this being the position, the District Forum has passed the order as stated above, thereby delegating its power more or less to the engineer, to assess the compensation, then directing the said amount to be paid by the opposite party, to the complainant, which is patently incorrect without application of mind, and the order came to be passed under erroneous conclusion per se illegal, which could not be allowed to remain on record. The reading of the order would suggest, the forum has not understood its duties and obligations, resulting this kind of order. In view of the above admitted position, the learned counsel for respondent fairly represented, that the matter may be remitted back to the District Forum, for reconsideration, after the Engineer files his report, for which there is no objection by the opposite party/ appellant also. In respect of other findings also, the order of the District Forum is set aside, since not well considered and the parties are entitled to let in fresh evidence, if necessary, in support of their respective defenses. As such it is not at all possible to confirm the order of the District Forum, or the case also cannot be decided by this Commission on merit, having the materials as such available since insufficient. In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the order of the District Forum is set aside, and the C.C.No.114/2003 is remitted back to the District Forum for disposal on merit afresh, according to law. The appointment of the Engineer also left to the parties, and they are directed to move the District Forum for appointment of Engineer afresh, if they desire so. The District Forum is directed to dispose of the case, within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order.;