ORDER Petitioners purchased two shops No.90-91. Later on shop number was changed to 134-135. Possession was not given. Later on by a mutual agreement petitioner agreed to take shop No.15 instead of two shops No.134-135. Possession was again not given. Petitioners filed a complaint seeking a direction to the respondent to either allot shop No.134-135 or in the alternate allot shop No.15. District Forum allowed the complaint and granted the alternate relief. Respondent was directed to allot and convey shop No.15 to the petitioners. Respondent was also directed to refund Rs.29,880/- charged -2- in excess. Rs.50,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost. Respondent accepted the order of the District Forum and did not file the appeal. Respondent executed sale-deed qua shop No.15 in favour of the petitioners on 31st March, 2011. Petitioners not being satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, filed the appeal before the State Commission for getting another shop and higher compensation. State Commission dismissed the appeal with cost with the following observation: - “It will appear from the facts stated above that the appellants/complainants have no basis and no justification whatsoever in bringing this appeal. They had made prayer an alternative prayer as mentioned above and the alternative prayer of delivery and possession of shop/space No. 15 at Convenient Shopping Centre, Chiranjiv Vihar, Ghaziabad has already been full filled on 31st March, 2011, and the prayer made by the complainants stands therefore exhausted. They now want possession of one more shop also of which they are not entitled. Even in the letter dated 20.02.2003 given by the complainants to the respondent, they had made a clear request that instead of shops 134-135 shop/space No. 15 in Convenient Shopping Centre be given to them. The argument of the appellants was that no final order was passed on this application but that makes no difference because no ultimate analysis possession of -3- shop No. was delivered to the complainants. The argument of the complainants in this regard is wholly untenable. No case in appeal is therefore made out and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. Two thousand.” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Petitioners had agreed to take shop No.15 in lieu of the two shops No.134-135 purchased by them. Since the petitioners had voluntarily agreed to take shop No.15, they were not justified in asking for the allotment of another shop. State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioners at the time of argument, did not insist on the allotment of another shop. The only submission made by him is that the compensation awarded is inadequate. District Forum has awarded Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation. No ground for increase in compensation amount is made out. Petitioners have been sufficiently compensated. Revision petition is dismissed. -4- However, cost of Rs.2,000/- imposed by the State Commission is waived. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has deposited the awarded amount before the District Forum. If that be so, the District Forum is directed to release the amount in favour of the petitioners alongwith interest thereon. | 
