NIRMALA ARVIND SANE vs VISHWAS VINAYA PARANJAPE

WE are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on perusal of the material available in the appeal paper book and on hearing the learned Advocates for the parties.

WE wish to clarify at the outset, that we are not adverting to the factual matrix on issue involved in the matter herein, since prima facie we are of the view that District Forum was not right in its perception in holding that the dispute being the subject matter of the complaint was not entertainable by it and thereby relegating the parties i.e. complainant/appellants herein to the Civil Court (for berevity''s sake appellants herein are referred to as "Flat purchasers" and the respondents as "Builders"). It is to be stated that original O.P./respondent herein died and the opponents namely, Nos. (a) to (e) seems to have been impleaded at later stage in the complaint who are the legal heirs and representatives of the original O.P. In the complaint flat purchasers have alleged certain deficiencies on the part of the Builders.

It needs to be stated that under Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, service pertaining to Housing Construction having brought under the sweep of the said Act, District Forum will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint herein.

IN the last page of the impugned order dated 16.1.2002, District Forum has held that the matter would require great deal of evidence as it involves complicated questions of facts and law. It is however to be stated that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, delivered on 12th August, 2002 and reported in III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=IV (2002) SLT 714=2002 CTJ Page 757, the Consumer Fora should not shirk their responsibility and their duty of adjudication of consumer disputes, if the dispute falls under their jurisdiction and purview, merely on the ground that the issues involved are complicated questions of facts and law.

THAT being so, we think it appropriate that District Forum thrashes out the matter on merits being amenable to its jurisdiction. At this stage, Mr. Patwardhan, Advocate for the respondents submitted that the original O.P. has since dead and the grievance being deficiency in service, the legal heirs of the provider of the service as alleged, cannot be held responsible and liable. We do not wish to entertain this aspect at this stage and leave the same open for adjudication for the Forum. Hence we pass the following order : ORDER "(1) Appeal is allowed and its impugned order dated 16.1.2002 is set aside and Complaint No. 183/1995 is restored to the file of District Forum, Pune. (2) District Forum, Pune is directed to thrash out the matter on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Law and the Rules and on giving required opportunities to the parties. (3) Appellant''s Advocate shall furnish copy of the order herein to the District Forum. (4) District Forum shall proceed to dispose of the complaint expeditiously and as far as possible within 6 months of the receipt of the copy herein. (5) We further make it clear that the District Forum shall proceed to dispose of the complaint, totally uninfluenced by its earlier findings or any observations of our appearing in the judgment herein. (6) Newly added respondents/O.Ps. will be at liberty to file supplementary written statement before the District Forum, which could be filed within 6 weeks from today and copy thereof to be furnished to the complainant well in advance. (7) By consent date of appearance by the parties before the District Forum is fixed on 5.3.2003, on which date parties shall appear before the District Forum without fail and seek directions in the matter of fixation of date for final hearing. (8) Appeal herein stands disposed of with no order as to costs."

Appeal allowed.