Complainant/petitioner was allotted a house on 28.4.2003.  Petitioner paid the entire consideration amount of Rs.6,35,000/-.  Possession was handed over to him.  Petitioner filed the complaint with the grievance that the house did not have the basic amenities like water supply and electricity at the time of handing over the possession; quality of construction was not in accordance with the specifications.  He got the house examined from the expert who found defects in the house.  According to him, he had spent a sum of Rs.2,58,000/- for getting the defects removed. 

        District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,908/- along with interest @ 7% within 2 months from the date of the order till realization.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded as costs.

        Petitioner as well as the respondents filed separate appeals before the State Commission.  Appeal filed by the petitioner was numbered as 1739/2005 and the appeal filed by the respondents was numbered as 708/2006.  Appeal No.1739/2005 filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation was dismissed and the appeal No.708/2006 filed by the respondent was allowed and the order of the District Forum was set aside.

        Being aggrieved, petitioner filed consolidated revision petitions, which were later on consolidated into one against both the appeals.

        District Forum had appointed a Local Commissioner.  Based on the defects noticed by the Local Commissioner, District Forum allowed the compensation of Rs.1,04,908/-.  State Commission, without noticing/referring to the report of the Local Commissioner, has reversed the order of the District Forum.  Another reason given by the State Commission was that the petitioner was the only person to file the complaint alleging deficiencies and no other similarly situated person filed the complaint. 

        Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that some other similarly situated consumers had filed the complaints which were allowed by the District Forum and the orders passed by the District Forum were upheld up to the National Commission.

Order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained as the State Commission has failed to take into consideration an important piece of evidence, i.e., the report of the Local Commissioner and the fact that some other similarly situated consumers had filed the complaints which were allowed.  Accordingly, the same is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the relevant material on record.

        It may be mentioned here that at the time of admission of the revision petition on 7.5.2007, counsel for the petitioner restricted his claim to the relief granted by the District Forum.  Since the petitioner had restricted his claim to the relief granted by the District Forum, Appeal No.1739/2005 seeking enhancement of compensation would be deemed to be dismissed.  The State Commission is required to decide Appeal No.708/2006 only which had been filed by the respondent.

Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 21.5.2012.

Since it is an old matter, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 4 months from the date of first appearance of the parties.