AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PETITIONER, an architect, was the opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum. Complaint against him was for alleged deficiency in service in not providing proper service to the complainant (respondent No. 1 herein) in the construction of his house. District Forum, on a complaint filed by the complainant, directed him to pay Rs. 10,000/- with interest and cost. This order in appeal filed by the petitioner was affirmed by the State Commission.
IT was submitted before us by the petitioner that he was not given proper opportunity to defend his case. IT had been noticed by the State Commission that District Forum had observed that service on the petitioner was adequate and the petitioner was quite well aware of the proceedings pending against him. His contention before the State Commission that he was not served by the District Forum, was therefore, not accepted. IT is unfortunate that petitioner did not defend his case. Now, it is too late for him to contend that he was not deficient in service. In view of the concurrent finding by the District Forum and the State Commission, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.