LEELAWATI Vs. SUKHMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant, who having lost in both Forums below is before us as Revisionist. Grouse of the complaint is related to deficiency in service on the part of respondent, by not providing electricity, water and road in the colony developed by the respondent, where, the petitioner and her husband had purchased flats. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum vide its order dated 8.6.1999 in the first round of litigation on the ground that claim be agitated under the provisions of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the case was remanded to decide the complaint on merits.

(2.) District Forum in fresh adjudication found respondent deficient in rendering services and directed him to provide electricity and roads as per plan. Both the parties filed appeals. The State Commission vide its order dated 22.3.2001 did not find the respondent deficient in providing water and electricity which the petitioner was already enjoying, but on the subject of providing roads, case was remanded, to pass order after obtaining report of Local Commissioner. Based on technical report, the District Forum directed the respondents to construct roads as per plan and also awarded Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and costs. On an appeal filed by the respondent, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to seek his remedy elsewhere. It is against this order that revision petition has been filed.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner and also the respondent as also perused the material on record. We agree with the State Commission that the respondent cannot be faulted for any deficiency in providing water and electricity. As far as road is concerned - suffice here to say that report of the Commissioner appointed by the District Forum is quite categorical that road is not constructed as per specification and sanctioned estimate. We see no merit in the direction of the State Commission to direct the petitioner to seek remedy on this aspect elsewhere. It is the responsibility of the Consumer Forum to be alive and sensitive to the need, to ensure, that if deficiency is noticed then relief is given. In this case report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the District Forum is quite clear and State Commission should have taken cognizance of this. We set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum passed on 11.10.2001. The petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable by the respondent to the petitioner/complainant. Revision Petition allowed.