This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the developer, calls in question the correctness of order dated 05.11.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh (for short ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 1913 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Comission has affirmed order dated 19.09.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – I, U T Chandigarh (for short ‘the District Forum’) in complaint case no. 180 of 2008.

 The District Forum had awarded to the respondent/ complainant a compensation of Rs.5.00 lakh in addition to the amount deposited by him for allotment of a Penthouse at Chandigarh under the Scheme “A’’, Swarn Rajat Yojana, viz., Sahara City Home Township in Chandigarh. Both the Forums below have found the petitioner to be deficient in service, inasmuch as after accepting a deposit of Rs.1,00,004/- for allotment of the said Penthouse some time in the year 2004, the said Penthouse was never constructed. As a

matter of fact at the time of launch of the scheme, even an  approved plan for the projects at the sites for which the Respondent had given its preferences in the application had not been obtained by the Petitioner. The above grievance of the petitioner herein is that since the amount deposited by the respondent was refunded in the year 2008, the compensation awarded is too higher.

 Having regard to the aforenoted concurrent finding by the Fora below, we are unable to pursuade ourselves agree with learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly the project, for which the said amount had been accepted by the petitioner never saw the light of the day. In our view offer of an alternative flat in a different city, does not absolve the petitioner of its liability to deliver the possession of the flat, booked by the respondent under the Scheme.

 We do not find any jurisidictional error in the impugned order, quantifying the aforestated compensation, warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction. In our opinion, the compensation awarded is adequate.  The revision is bereft of any merit and is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs.