BRIG. K.P. MEHWALA vs Army Welfare Housing Organisation

THIS is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Pune, dated 22/3/1993 passed in Complaint No. 136/92. A complaint filed by complainant/ present appellant has been dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that the complaint does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, we find that no convincing reasons are given in the impugned order. The present appellant alleged in his complaint that the Opposite Party, the Army Welfare Organisation had agreed to render the service to its member for construction of a flat. The complainant is the member of the said Organisation. The complainant alleged that the construction of flat was at the cost of Rs. 1,17,086.00 with additional amount of Rs. 17,290.00 towards the cost of car parking space and Rs. 46,645.00 for common amenities. The complainant alleged that he was allotted a flat by a communication dated 19/7/1987. The complainant alleged that the Opposite Party has committed breach of agreement by indulging in an unfair trade practice and asked to pay an amount in exess of the agreed consideration, and, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum, Pune.

WE heard Mr. Kantharia, Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Mohata, Advocate for the respondent. According to Advocate Kantharia, the impugned order is erroneous in law inasmuch as the wider connotation of the definition of ''service'' has not been taken consideration by the District Forum. The Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Avas Nigam v. M.K. Gupta has clearly laid down the proposition of law that the provisions of the C.P. Act applied to the construction activities whether it is carried out by the private sector or by Government undertakings or by any authority. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the dismissal of complainant''s consumer dispute is contrary to the provisions of law. There is thus, failure of justice while deciding the complaint by the District Forum. Under these circumstances, we are firmly of the view that the impugned order is required to be set aside on account of the failure of the District Forum to exercise its jurisdiction under the provisions of the C.P. Act. The complaint is, therefore, required to be sent back to the District Forum for fresh disposal according to law. Hence, we pass the following order: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The District Forum, Pune is directed to decide the complaint afresh, in the light of the observations made above and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.K. Gupta. The District Forum shall allow both the parties to amend their pleadings if necessary and after hearing both the parties shall decide the consumer dispute expeditiously. Appeal allowed.