There should not be deficiency in service.

The above Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.12.2004 made in E.P.No.4 of 2004 in O.P.No.13 of 2003 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter called as the Commission), at Chennai.

2. The petitioner herein is the opposite party in the complaint preferred by the respondent herein. The respondent has preferred a complaint for deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner. According to the respondent, even though he has parted with the amount for construction of the house in question long bank, the petitioner has not completed the construction and there was undue delay, which resulted in filing the complaint before the Commission.

3. The Commission by order dated 29.3.2004 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,93,416/- towards compensation, which includes the payment made by the respondent/complainant for construction of the house with with interest and damages.

4. Apart from the said amount a sum of Rs.5,000/- was also ordered towards the costs of the complaint.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed an application before the National Commission and an interim order was passed on 6.7.2004 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the credit of the petition within a period of six weeks therefrom. In this regard, an application was filed before the National Commission seeking extention of time, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner has also filed an application on 31.11.2004 before the State Commission seeking permission to deposit the amount and the same was also dismissed. Under the said circumstances, the respondent has filed an application in E.P.No.4 of 2004 to execute the order and the Commission by Order dated 28.3.2004 has ordered for the issuance of warrant of arrest and production of the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein approached this Court by way of revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Commission has not considered the bona fide on the part of the petitioner, who was ready and willing to make the payment as ordered earlier and that even when the application filed on the earlier occasion viz., on 31.11.2004 seeking for permission to deposit the amount, he was in possession of the demand drafts for the substantial amount except for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which could not be mobilised due to unforeseen circumstances. In this connection, he has drawn my attention, about the demand drafts obtained as early as on 14.12.2004. According to the learned counsel, the Commission has not considered the fact that except a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, the petitioner has mobilised the entire balance amount and the equitable order could have been passed instead of dismissing the application seeking permission to deposit the amount. He would further add that even the balance of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in the Registry of the Commission. In this regard, he has produced acknowledgment affixing the seal of the office of the Commission dated 22.12.2004 which discloses that all the demand drafts were received and kept in the locker. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the Commission on 28.3.2004 is liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop.Society and others (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 412 and the decision rendered in Uma Nursing Home rep.by its owner.., and another vs. V.Jansirani and others [2005 (1) TLNJ 176].

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that though the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is wide, the petitioner has not made out a case for this Court to exercise the said powers. He would f