VARINDER KAUSHAL Vs. OMAXE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent, alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent in the services rendered to him. The copy of the complaint, however, is not on record. Vide order dated 04-01-2012, the complaint was allowed in the following terms:

(2.) Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The aforesaid appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 18-05-2012 which to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

(3.) Being still dissatisfied the respondent approached this Commission by way of a revision petition. The aforesaid revision petition came to be decided vide order dated 03-09-2013. The operative part of the aforesaid order reads as under: