DILIP KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. CHINAR BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the complainant, Dilip Kumar and others against the order of State Commission dismissing their complaint.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainants had purchased plots from the respondent M/s. Chinar Builders. Not being satisfied with the services rendered the complainants had filed a complaint before the State Commission which was withdrawn on 21.10.1994 pursuant to an out of Court agreement which is on record. The terms of settlement spell out the deficiencies to be made good by the respondent and this settlement was agreed to by majority of the members of the Chinar Welfare Society in the General Body Meeting of the Society. The deficiencies to be made good by the respondent related to boundary wall, leveling of parking space, repair of roof, repair of tiles in the open space on the ground floor, transfer of electric meter in favour of society and repair to drainage system.

(3.) On complaint being filed before the State Commission several issues were raised. State Commission appointed a Commissioner to go into the points raised in the complaint. Report of the Commissioner is on record. After hearing both the parties, State Commission has ordered grant of Rs. 1,000 with interest @ 12% from the date of filing the complaint to each of the complainant. Not being satisfied with the relief the complainants have filed the appeal. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that as per the report of the Commissioner appointed by the State Commission, several deficiencies have been noted but State Commission has erred in not giving relief based on the report. Certain people had withdrawn the earlier complaint before the State Commission with a rider that a fresh complaint shall be filed. The State Commission has failed to see this point. The applicants are entitled to relief on all counts of deficiencies noted by the Commisisoner. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the complainant's having once withdrawn the complaint filed before the State Commission cannot file a fresh complaint and are covered by the principle of res judicata. Everything what was proposed to be done under the terms of agreement has been done. Hence, the complaint has not fully been accepted by the State Commission. Appeal needs to be dismissed.