1. Heard Mr. Daleep Dhyani Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate for respondent-1, Mr. Harsh Kumar, Advocate for respondent-2 and Ms. Aariti Goel, Advocate for respondent-3. 2. The above revision petition has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana dated 14.01.2016 in First Appeal No.578/2014, whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the complaint. 3. Dhiraj Kaushik, the petitioner filed Consumer Complaint No.209 of 2009 with the District Commission for directing the opposite parties to (i) pay Rs.950000/- as compensation for deficiency in service by not taking care and precaution in performing the operation for removal of stone and gall bladder; (ii) pay Rs.25000/- to the complainant; (iii) pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of the award; (iv) accept the complaint with cost of Rs.11000/-; and (v) any other relief which the Forum deems fit and proper in favour of the complainant. 4. As per complaint the complainant suffered acute pain in his stomach and he visited Aneja Hospital and Nursing Home. Dr. R.K. Aneja examined the complainant and after conducting the necessary tests he found that the complainant has stones in his gall bladder due to which the gall bladder has been totally damaged and the patient required a surgery in order to avoid future complication. As per advice of Dr. R.K. Aneja, the complainant got admitted in opposite party hospital on 22.03.2005. After taking consent of the complainant, pre-operative tests were conducted. After examining the test reports, operation was conducted. After surgery, the complainant was informed that the gall bladder and stones have been removed permanently and now ERCP has been done and stint was put. It was also stated that in future the complainant will have no stomach pain and there may be minor pain for some days due to stitches. He was discharged from the hospital on 15.04.2005. After discharge there was mild pain in the stomach of the complainant but he ignored the same for some time as the doctor had already told him about the same. However, he again visited the doctor and he was advised to take pain killer tablets and he was asked that he need not worry as the operation of gall bladder removal was successful. The complainant remained under the treatment of Dr. R.K. Aneja but there was no improvement in his condition till December, 2005 and his condition was deteriorating day by day. In the year 2008 the complainant consulted the doctors at Rajpura and Patiala who advised him to consult at Fortis Hospital, Mohali. On 03.07.2008 the complainant consulted the doctor at Fortis Hospital, Mohali and he was admitted there and some tests were conducted. Doctor at Fortis Hospital advised the complainant that his gall bladder needs to be removed. The complainant was shocked and he told the doctor that his gall bladder has already been removed. The opposite party has played a fraud with the complainant by not removing the gall bladder despite taking charges for the same. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed CC/209/2009 before the District Commission, Ambala. 5. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing the written version stating that the patient was remained admitted in the OP hospital from 22.3.2005 to 15.04.2005. After conducting various tests, it was found that the patient was having stones in gall bladder. Accordingly, a surgery was conducted and his gall bladder was removed. After discharge from the hospital he had no problem for three years from 15.04.2005 to 03.07.2008. As per his own version the complainant visited Fortis Hospital at Mohali on 03.07.2008 for pancreatitis but he has not produced any record of Rajpura or Patiala. The complainant developed another problem after three years for which he was admitted in Fortis Hospital from 03.07.2008 to 14.07.2008 and subsequently on 18.08.2008 to 21.08.2008. When the surgery for removal of gall bladder was conducted, stent was also put and the complainant was advised to get the stent removed after 8 weeks of ERCP for which he was specifically informed in writing. If any problem has occurred after three years, the OP cannot is not responsible for the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the District Commission allowed the complaint and Dr.R.K. Aneja was held liable for deficiency in service and was directed to pay Rs.442790/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of the order. Since Dr. R.K. Aneja was professionally insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-2) for an amount of Rs.5/- lacs, the District Commission directed the insurance company to indemnify him for Rs.5/- and the balance amount was directed to be paid by Dr. R.K. Aneja. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties filed First Appeal No.578/2014 with the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Commission and dismissed the complaint. Hence, the above revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (complainant). 8. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Opposite Party No.1 did not appear despite service of notice. Therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte. Opposite Parties 2 to 8 were deleted from the array of the parties. Opposite party No.9 (authorised person of the developer) filed his written statement and contested the complaint on the ground that area of 275 sq. ft. has not been earmarked as common parking area. The parking space has already been provided to all flat owners. It was also denied that opposite party No.2 has locked the car parking area. Opposite Party No.9 also took preliminary question of maintainability stating that the case requires voluminous evidence which is not possible in summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 6. The District Commission, vide order dated 29.01.2021 allowed the complaint and directed Opposite Parties to allot one car parking and one bike parking space to the complainant in the common area. The opposite parties were also directed to remove hindrance (chain and lock), if any, from the common parking area. The District Commission also granted compensation of Rs.20000/- to complainant to be paid by the opposite parties jointly and severally. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, opposite parties 1 and 9 filed First Appeal No.247 of 2021, which was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 10.11.2022. Hence, opposite parties 1 and 9 have filed the present revision petition. 8. The District Commission relied on clause 18 of the sale deed wherein it is mentioned that all flat owners are given common area for their usage and the flat owners have been given one marla (275 sq. ft.) parking area to park one car and one bike with rights of 1/6th from the common area. Looking into the dispute that opposite parties 2 to 7 were causing hindrance in the legitimate right of parking of the complainant, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to allot one car parking and one bike parking space to the complainant in the common area. The District Commission has granted the relief to the complainant in terms of clause 18 of the sale deed. The argument of the petitioner that the common area is used by all flat owners and no specific area can be allotted to a particular flat owner cannot be accepted for the reason that opposite parties 2 to 7 were claiming that they had purchased the parking area from opposite party No.1 and put key chains and locks on the parking area and removed all the vehicles parked therein. Therefore, the District Commission rightly directed the opposite parties to allot one car parking and one bike parking in the parking area. The District Commission has appreciated the facts in correct perspective and passed a well-reasoned order which was upheld by the State Commission. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As far as argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the case required voluminous evidence which is not permissible in summary proceedings is concerned, I find that the dispute relates only to the parking area and both the Fora below have decided the same without voluminous evidence. Even if voluminous evidence is required, the Consumer Commission can entertain the complainant in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Coop. HSG. Society Ltd. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd., Appeal (Civil) 7228 of 2001. ORDER In view of aforesaid discussions, the revision petition is dismissed. | 
