(1.) Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Mr. P. K. Mittal, Mr. Zia-Ul-Hasan, Members and Ghalib Apartments Residents Welfare Association, GARWA for short, filed a complaint before District Forum-I against Mr. Mohd. Siddique as OP-1 and Ghalib Memorial Co-op. G/h Society through its Administrator as OP-2. It was averred in the complaint that the complainants No.1 and 2 were Members of the Co-operative Society, OP-2. The Society had given contract to OP 1 regarding the following works: (a) Construction of roads inside the complex; (b) Construction of underground water tank and pump house; (c) Laying of water pipe-line; (d) Water proofing cement; and (e) Sewerage. The then Management of the Co-operative Society had made over payments to the contractor and the contractor had left the aforesaid works without completing them. The complainants, therefore, sought direction against the contractor that he should remove the deficiency in service by completing the unfinished works.
(2.) The complaint was contested by the contractor, OP 1. In the written statement filed by him, a number of preliminary objections were taken. It was stated that the complainants were not the 'consumers' vis-a-vis the OP and there was no privity of contract between the complainants and the contractor. The agreement on the other hand was with the Co-operative Society. It was further stated that the work were completed and handed over to the Co-operative Society in 1988 and the complaint which was filed on 8.12.94 was barred by. limitation. Further plea of the OP was that four civil suits and two criminal cases were pending between the contractor and the Co- operative Society. The present complaint had been filed as a counterblast to the aforesaid suits and in view of the pendency of those suits the present complaint was not maintainable.
(3.) The District Forum held that the complainants are 'consumers' being beneficiaries u/ Sec.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint was not barred by limitation as the contractor had failed to complete the works which he was required to complete under the agreement. With regard to the civil suits, it was held that the subject matter therein was different and, therefore, the complaint was maintainable. Aggrieved by the order, the contractor has preferred this revision petition.