Revision Petition, NCDRC Can't Interfere With Lower Fora's Order Unless Clear Error In Law: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The Complainant hired an Engineer/Opposite Party to construct a house for Rs.12,54,000 and paid the full amount per their agreement. When the engineer delayed completion and threatened her, she took possession of the unfinished house. She found severe construction defects, posing safety risks. Upon discovering that the engineer was actually a mason, the complainant filed a police complaint. Due to the Engineer's deficient service, causing mental and financial distress, she filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the engineer to pay Rs.4,25,000 towards renovating the Complaint scheduled premises and a sum of Rs.25,000 towards mental agony along with Rs.5,000 towards the cost of the proceedings. Being aggrieved by the District Forum's order, the engineer appealed to the State Commission of Tamil Nadu, which dismissed the complaint. Consequently, the engineer filed a revision petition before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The Engineer contended that despite the Complainant's permit for a 1300 sq ft house, she insisted on a 1650 sq ft construction, which he completed and handed over, demanding the remaining Rs.15,000 balance. The engineer asserted that the house was built per their agreement. It was argued that another engineer inspected the house and reported it was properly constructed and fit for occupancy. Despite this, the Complainant filed a false complaint.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that some works were indeed incomplete as per the agreement, a fact acknowledged by the engineer. The District Forum's order, supported by evidence and arguments, was upheld by the State Commission with minor modifications to the compensation quantum. Referring to the Consumer Protection Act and relevant case law, including Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the Commission emphasized the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction. It reiterated that intervention was only warranted if the lower fora had acted illegally, with material irregularity, or beyond their jurisdiction. Citing Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr., the Commission highlighted that its role was not to interfere with the lower court's factual findings unless there was a clear error in law or procedure.

Ultimately, the Commission dismissed the revision petition.

Case Title: Prabu Herbert Samuel (Civil Engineer) Vs. R. Rajammal

Case Number: R.P No. 570/2020