ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/ complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that it was stated by the respondent/complainant that he had entered into an ‘agreement’ with the appellant for construction of a house on 2.6.1992 and in pursuance to which he paid Rs. 4,70,000 to the appellant but the construction collapsed on 8.8.1993 due to sub-standard material used and also due to poor supervision and management, resulting in heavy loss and mental harassment to the appellant/complainant. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the State Commission for refund of Rs. 4,70,000 along with interest (c) 18% p.a. and Rs. 5,000 as compensation. The matter was contested by the appellant but the State Commission after hearing the parties, perusal of material on record, evidence as also the cross-examination of the parties hold the appellant to be deficient in rendering service and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 4,70,000 along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for mental agony and other incidental expenditure incurred by him along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of the order. Cost of Rs. 1,000 was also awarded. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us by the appellant/ opposite party.
3. Notice was issued for today’s date. There is a letter from appellant received by this Commission that considering his present financial and physical bad condition, he is unable to come over to Delhi in person or to appoint an Advocate in Delhi. Despite notice none appears on behalf of respondent, he is proceeded ex parte.
4. In view of above, we go on to pass the orders based on material on record.
5. We have very carefully gone through memo of appeal as also the material brought on record. In the memo of appeal, it is admitted by the appellant that the agreement bears his signature but it is his case that his signatures were obtained on a blank paper. He also admits having received Rs. 4,70,000 from the complainant but it is his case that this amount was passed on to the constructer Kumaran who was carrying out the construction work and not the appellant. It is also his case that the State Commission erred in passing the orders based on the report of the Engineer in which it was held that the ‘props’ were weak resulting in collapse of building.
6. From the letter received from the appellant dated 18.10.2006 we are of the view that the appellant is not illiterate as projected by him. He has signed in English whereas in the memo of appeal he states that he has studied up to only 7th standard. There is no evidence brought on record in support of his contention that he signed on a blank paper. In the absence of which we cannot but hold that agreement (Exhibit P-1) was indeed the agreement entered between the parties which bears appellant’s signature. Coming to the second leg of his argument that he passed on the amount of Rs. 4,70,00 to Kumaran. The State Commission went into this point and hold “nobody witnessed the amount being paid to Kumaran, he (the appellant) does not remember the month or day when Kumaran was entrusted with construction. The receipts, etc. were handed over to Kareem and other receipts were taken by the Police….” Nothing came in the way from the appellant in procuring a copy of receipts or producing Kumaran as witness in support of his contention, in the absence of which we see no merit in this contention either. As far as 3rd leg of the argument is concerned, we have seen the letter written by the Municipal Engineer, Thalassery to the Circle Inspector of Police, Thalassery, clearly stating that the collapse of the building occurred during the process of concrete of the roof slabs of the first floor for which reason given by him is that the ‘bamboo-props’ supporting the work might have space at larger intervals than is actually required, to support the load of the roof lab. He also stated that the lack of bracing between the prop and the inadequate fixity of prop at the bottom using wedges, combined with lack of proper load capacity, i.e., of inferior quality of bamboo poles, might have caused slipping and yielding of props resulting in collapse of the concrete slabs. As against this there is no expert evidence brought on record by the appellant to rebut this expert evidence about the quality of work resulting in collapse of building. If in view of these facts and material on record, the State Commission has held the appellant deficient in rendering service, we cannot but agree with such a conclusion. Nothing to the contrary has been shown to us to take any different view than the one taken by the State Commission as far as deficiency in service, on the appellant part, is concerned.
7. In view of above, we see no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.
8. Keeping in view the facts and. circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.