ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This appeal has been filed by the Complainants, Dilip Kumar and others against the order of State Commissioner dismissing their complaint.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complaints had purchased plots from the Respondent, M/s. Chinar Builders. Not being satisfied with the services rendered the Complainants had filed a complaint before the State Commission which was withdrawn on 21.10.94 pursuant to an out of court agreement which is on record. the terms of settlement spell out the deficiencies to be made good by the Respondent and this settlement was agreed to by majority of the members of the Chinar Welfare Society in the General Body Meeting of the Society. The deficiencies to be made good by the Respondent related to boundary wall, leveling of parking space, repair of roof, repair of tiles in the open space on the ground floor, transfer of electric meter in favour of society and repair to drainage system. On complaint being filed before the State Commission several issues were raised. State Commission appointed a Commissioner to go into the points raised in the complaint. Report of the Commissioner is on record. After hearing both the parties, State commission has ordered grant of Rs. 1,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of filing the complaint to each of the Complainant. Not being satisfied with the relief the Complaints have filed the appeal. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that as per the report of the Commissioner appointed by the State Commission, several deficiencies have been noted but State Commission has erred in not giving relief based on the report. Certain people had withdrawn the earlier complaint before the State Commission with a rider that a fresh complaint shall be filed. The State Commission has failed to see this point. The Applicants are entitled to relief on all counts of deficiencies noted by the Commissioner. On the other hand, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the Complainant’s having once withdrawn the complaint filed before the State Commission cannot file a fresh complaint and are covered by the principle of Res-judicate. Everything what was proposed to be done under the terms of agreement has been done. Hence the complaint has (sic)ully been not accepted by the State Commission. Appeal needs to be dismissed.
3. We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments and find that it is a fact that Complaints failed before the State Commission earlier was withdrawn but a perusal of the order also shows that State Commission in the same order has also observed:-
“Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Balwani and 10 others and state that he shall file another complaint”.
4. We also see that as per terms of Agreement certain repair and other works were to be carried out by the Respondent and the were agreed to by the majority of the Members of the Society in the meeting of Society’s General Body. It is on these terms that the complaint was withdrawn. What we also see is that except for two items mentioned in the Agreement namely roof repair and drain clearance, the Commission has gone into other items as well. In our view, the Commission should have observed on the compliance of the repairs/other works within the Terms of Agreement. We find, perhaps non-observation of this, has led to the present situation.
5. In view of this, we remand the case back to the State Commission to verify the compliance of the Annexure to the Agreement detailing the works to be carried out by the Respondent. Only to that extent, the Respondent could be held liable/deficient, in case the same has not been done. Since this was a majority decision of the Chinar Welfare Society comprising the residents of the flat complex built by the Respondent, any agreement entered into by majority should be binding on all members, if it relates to a common cause.
6. State Commission may, in these circumstances, determine the status of the implementation of works as per Annexure to the Agreement and then pass appropriate orders as per law.
7. No orders as to costs.