MADHU Vs. SWASTIK BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the complainant who is the petitioner before us. The petition arises out of proceedings initiated under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant.

(2.) The dispute pertains to construction of a flat in a scheme floated by the respondent/builder. It is not necessary for us to go into various details except to note the order dated 6.4.1998 of the State Commission arising out of proceedings in a complaint by the complainant under Section 12 of the Act. The order dated 6.4.1998 reads as under :

(3.) It appears respondent did not offer the flat within 3 months and he sought some clarifications of the order which was declined. In the year 2000, complainant filed proceedings under Section 27 of the Act against the respondent for allotment of flat to him. It, however, so happened that since the respondent did not give the flat, he complied with the order dated 6.4.1998 of the State Commission by depositing an amount of Rs. 2,61,192.72 with the Registrar, District Forum, Nagpur. District Forum therefore, confirmed satisfaction of the order.