JUDGMENT - RANE M.S., President:---We are proceeding to dispose of this revision at the stage of its admission itself on hearing the learned Advocate for the applicant and on perusal of the material made available in this application. 2. The applicant is the common original O.P. No. 1 in the aforesaid complaints and against the order of District Forum dated 29th April, 2003 passed on the application of the applicant herein rejecting his request for referring the matter to the Civil Court that this revision has been filed. 3. We consider it unnecessary to have a detailed advertance to the factual matrix as obtained in the matter herein. We only mention few relevant facts to appreciate the merits of this revision. 4. The complaints have been filed by different complainants who are respondent Nos. 1 to 10 in this application. 5. The applicant is common original O.P. No. 1 who is owner of the land in all the complaints and common original O.P. No. 2 in all the complaints is the builder. (For brevity's sake parties are hereinafter referred to as- Complainants as 'Flat Purchasers', O.P. No. 1 as 'Developer' and O.P. No. 2 as 'Builder'). 6. As stated developer is the applicant in this application. It is noticed that flat purchasers have filed the complaints alleging various defects in the construction work as more particularly set out in the respective complaints. 7. In those matters, Developer made application, copy whereof is at page No. 13 of this application, inter alia contending that the Expert evidence would be needed to prove such defects and it would not be possible for the District Forum by recourse to summary procedure to properly probe the various issues involved. 8. District Forum, as it is noticed had also appointed an Architect as a 'Court Commissioner' who has after inspection made a report and submitted to the District Forum and this position has also been conceded before us by and on behalf of the applicant. 9. We wish to state that the order of the District Forum in the circumstances is just, fair and needing no interference at all. 10. Apart from the facts, that the issue of the nature as obtained in the matter herein and as sought to be raised by the Developer is no more res integra in view of recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of (Dr. 10. Apart from the facts, that the issue of the nature as obtained in the matter herein and as sought to be raised by the Developer is no more res integra in view of recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of (Dr. J.J. Merchant and others v. Shrinath Chaturvedi)1, reported in 2003(1) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)24 (October 2002 Issue), wherein Apex Court has clearly laid down that the Consumer Fora functioning under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should not abdicate their duties of adjudication of consumer disputes by themselves on the pretext of there being complicated question of facts and law and relegate the party to the Civil Court which will only add to the agonies of the consumers. The Apex Court has also further held that if otherwise the dispute brought before the Consumer Fora is amenable to its jurisdiction then it is obligatory upon the Fora to investigate and probe the same by themselves and resolve the matter on consideration of relevant material that would be placed before them, in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules. 11. There is one more angle to the matter herein, which would also operate as militating factor against the plea raised by the applicant/Developer. The same is that nature of grievances sought to be raised by the flat purchasers in their respective complaints pertain to certain defects in the quality of construction and alleged failure on the part of builders and Developers and as such, if proved, the same may constitute deficiency in service within the meaning of definition of section 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Furthermore under definition clause of section 2(1)(o), the legislature has included by amendment, effected in the year 1993, "Housing Construction" as a kind of service so as to be amenable to the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora, established and functioning under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that being so, the disputes being the subject-matter of these group of complaints would squarely fall within its ambit and jurisdiction. 12. It be also noted that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is essentially a socially beneficent statute enacted with the object of protecting interest of consumers from exploitation of hazards, at the hands of producers of goods and providers of service hired by them for consideration. 12. It be also noted that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is essentially a socially beneficent statute enacted with the object of protecting interest of consumers from exploitation of hazards, at the hands of producers of goods and providers of service hired by them for consideration. The said Act bestows various benefits and advantages to the consumers for seeking redressal of their grievances, by setting independent redressal agencies, like Consumer Fora, postulating that such Fora should settle consumer disputes, with expeditious dispatch, eschewing technicalities and free of cost which with due respect may not be, available in civil courts, and as such, relegating the party to Civil Court as sought in this matter, would amount of depriving the party of statutory benefits, which would be contra productive to the statutory objects. 13. In view of conspectus of discussion as above and as also in the facts as obtained in the matter herein and further in view of fact that the District Forum has already taken required steps in the matter by appointing Expert as 'Court Commissioner' which is a right course in the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or even irregularity in the impugned order. ORDER 1. No merits. 2. Revision stands rejected. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Office shall furnish copies of the order to the parties. Revision rejected. -----