(1.) THE order under challenge, in this revision is dated28.5.2010, passed by the District Forum, Coimbatore, in C.C. No. 93/2009, wherein a Commissioner was appointed to inspect the subject matter of the disputed property, and file a report.
(2.) THE respondent in this revision, as complainant filed a case, against the revision petitioner/opposite party, seeking many directions, as catalogued in para 10 of the complaint, alleging deficiency in service, including many defects in the construction of the building, which the opposite party undertook to construct for a stated sum, as per the construction agreement dated 22.8.2004, which is opposed.
(3.) IN the said CC. 93/2009, CMP.206/2009 has been filed, for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, to study the construction work, executed by the opposite party, with defects, referred to in the complaint, and the incomplete works, common facilities, disability in the water pipes, between the other residents, and the complainant, and its cost involvement, etc. Though the petition was opposed, as said above, a order was passed, appointing an Advocate Commissioner, to inspect the property, with a qualified civil engineer, to note down the physical features, and submit a report, along with the report of the engineer, with plan, which is impugned.
The main grievance of the Revision Petitioner, is that the Consumer Forum, should not have passed an order, directing the Commissioner, to inspect the other residents, in order to compare the cost, and in this view, he wants modification or directions, thereby informing, he has no grievance in the appointment of the Commissioner, to examine the disputed property alone, which submission appears to be legally sound, warranting our acceptance.;