JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      The complainant/respondent, booked flat no.6 on the second floor of Jairam Apartment, with the petitioner on 03-03-2004. As per the said agreement, the sale consideration of the flat was agreed at Rs.6,50,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner as advance money against receipt. It was also decided between the parties that the flat in question would be in an area measuring 59.10 sq. mtrs. and comprise of one hall, one kitchen room, one bed room, one bathroom, one latrine, balcony and passage as well as water tank, etc.. The complainant raised a loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from HDFC bank for acquiring the aforesaid flat, possession of which was to be given within a period of nine months from the date of the agreement. Alleging that the construction of the flat had not been completed within the stipulated time, the complainant approached the Solapur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, the District Forum), seeking the following reliefs:

1. Application of the applicant may please be allowed with cost;
2. The construction of flat No.6 is to be completed with all facilities is to be done and handed over as well as the purchase deed of the said flat is to be executed;
3. The respondent has to pay compensation to the applicant as mentioned in clause 8;
4. Wherever required the applicant is to be permitted to make necessary correction.

2.      The matter was settled between the parties during the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum and the terms of the settlement read as under:

“1.     As mentioned in the agreement the respondent has to start the work of terrace work, lift work, drinking water tank work, tiling work in the parking, colouring of the building, plastering on the wall, etc.. The respondent has to start the said work on 30/10/2006 and should complete by 31/1/2007. It has been mentioned that after fulfillment of the said work on 15/2/2007 the respondent should execute the purchase deed in favour of the complainant.

2.      Out of the balance amount of consideration Rs.89,500/- the respondent has given concession of Rs.4,500/- towards the loss to applicant as main door was infested due to termite. Thus the applicant has to pay to the respondent amount by deducting Rs.4,500/- from Rs.89,500/- as shown below:

          After starting the work of the terrace on 15/11/2006 as demanded by the respondent the applicant has to issue letter on 21/11/2006 to HDFC Bank to issue cheque of Rs.50,000/- out of the housing loan sanctioned to him. Remaining amount of Rs.35,000/- is to be paid at the time of execution of purchase deed on 15/2/2007 in cash or cheque.”

3.      On execution of the aforesaid compromise, the complaint pending before the District Forum was disposed of vide order dated 30-09-2006, which reads as under:

“1.     As per the compromise took place before the Lok Adalat between the complainant and the respondent both complainant and respondent have filed joint pursis before this Forum. In the said compromise pursis by way of mutual compromise the matter has been settled as shown below:

1. Out of the remaining amount of Rs.89,500/- for compensation of the complainant the respondent has given concession of Rs.4,500/- for the loss sustained by the complainant due to termite caused to main door of his flat. Thus, out of the amount of Rs.89,500/- after deducting a sum of Rs.4,500/- the complainant has to pay to the respondent the remaining amount as shown below:

After starting work of the terrace on 15/11/2006 the respondent should demand the amount and accordingly the complainant has to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent out of the sanctioned amount of housing loan for which he has to advise HDFC bank by a letter on 20/11/2006 to issue cheque of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the respondent. Remaining amount of Rs.35,000/- will have to be paid at the time of executing purchase deed on 15/2/2007 in cash or through cheque.” 

4.      Alleging non-implementation of the aforesaid order the complainant filed an Execution Petition being Recovery Application No.31 of 2007. Neither in the order of the District Forum dated 30-09-2006 nor in the execution application there was any reference to the lift work to be executed by the petitioner in the building in question. Vide order dated    07-09-2013, the District Forum despite there being no reference to the lift work in the order dated 30-09-2006 and in the execution application, directed the petitioner to complete the lift work within two months of the said order.

5.      Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission). The said revision petition having been dismissed vide impugned order dated    22-04-2014, the petitioner is before us by way of this second revision petition.

6.      A perusal of the settlement effected between the parties leaves no doubt at all that the agreement reached between the parties, envisaged completion of various unfinished works including terrace work, lift work, drinking water tank work, tiling work in the parking, coloring of the building and plastering of the walls, etc.. In the order of the District Forum dated  30-09-2006, there is an omission to refer not only to the lift work but also to the terrace work, drinking water tank work, tiling work in the parking, coloring of the building, etc.. It is, thus, obvious that either the District Forum did not deem it necessary to refer to all the terms of the compromise in its order dated 30-12-2006 or there was an inadvertent omission to refer to that unfinished works which the petitioner was to carry out in terms of the settlement between the parties. In my view, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take any advantage of the aforesaid omission in the order of the District Forum dated 30-12-2006. The terms of the compromise were never disputed or repudiated by the petitioner at any point of time. Therefore, it was required to complete all the works referred in the settlement on the basis of which the order dated 30-12-2006 was passed by the District Forum.

7.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some more time to complete the remaining work. He submits that the work will positively be completed within a period of six months from today. The petitioner is granted six months to complete the remaining work, subject to its furnishing an undertaking to complete the remaining lift work within that period, in all respects. The revision petition stands disposed of.

8.      During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the District Forum did not have power to go beyond the order which it had passed on 30-09-2006 while entertaining the execution petition. The question of law is left open since it is not necessary to decide the said question in the factual position prevalent in the present revision petition.