Counsel for the petitioner had been briefly heard on 1.9.2010 and was directed to file the pleadings of both the cases as also the scheme under which the benefit was claimed and is being claimed in the present complaint.   In compliance with this directions, he has filed the following documents :

1.    Statement of the opponent Nos.1 & 2 issued to the applicant regarding claim reassessment settlement.

2.    Copy of FIR showing information given to the police in respect of incident of death of the deceased.

3.    Contract between opponent Nos.1 & 2

          Counsel for the petitioner was heard further today and his attention was drawn to para 3 of the order of the State Commission in which the Commission had clearly pointed out that if he had any grievance against the order of the District Forum in complaint No.122/2006, he should have preferred an appeal before the same.  Instead of that, he had filed the second complaint, which was dismissed.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal observing that the complaint has been decided in the earlier cases.  The second complaint cannot be filed and appeal against the same also cannot be preferred.  With reference to this observation of the State Commission, counsel for the petitioner was asked to present his complaint petition No.122/2006 before the District Forum and substantiate his claim to that he had two different claims under two different schemes.  In reply, counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the complaint petition before the District Forum, the name of the scheme has not been mentioned at all.  This takes away the very basis of filing the revision petition.

          For the reasons discussed above, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.