CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

HIRA CONSTRUCTIONS CO. vs PRANAVAM CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 26 November 2002 · Citation: 2003 1 CPJ 155 : 2003 1 CPR 255 : 2003 2 CLT 444 : 2003 2 CPC 390

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.P.Wadhwa , J.K.Mehra , B.K.Taimni J.
RESULT
Revision Petition dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 352 words
1.

IT was the petitioner who was opposite party before the District Forum. He is in the construction business.

2.

COMPLAINANTS alleged that there were various deficiencies in the flats purchased by them and since the petitioner failed to rectify the same a complaint was filed in the District Forum. The complaint was allowed with the following order : "(1) The O.P. - Hira Constructions Company shall pay to the Society of the complainants viz. Pranavam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. a sum of Rs. 1,12,320/- by way of damages and to each of the 12 complainants a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Total Rs. 36,000/-) as damages for mental agony/inconvenience for the deficiencies in services within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. (2) O.P. - Hira Constructions Company shall also take steps to execute Conveyance Deed in favour of the Society which is a continuous cause of action. (2) No order as to cost. (4) A copy of this order be sent to both parties."

Against this order petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same. However, eight weeks'' time was granted from the date of the order of the State Commission for compliance of the order of the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come before us.

In view of the concurrent finding of both the District Forum and State Commission we do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, it was submitted by Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the order was passed a compromise was entered into between the Society through its office bearers and as such the impugned order should be set aside. We are unable to accept such submission except to say that if there is any compromise between the members or the Society that may be brought to the notice of the District Forum if any execution petition is filed by the complainants. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.