Complainant/petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent Housing Board on 03.3.1994 to purchase a house costing Rs.3,80,720/-.  He deposited Rs.1,44,000/- with the respondent as advance money.  She had to take a loan of Rs.2 Lacs from                    GIC Housing Company in order to make further payment to the respondent for which she requested the respondent to supply the registered agreement and some other documents.  According to her, the respondent did not supply the documents, as a result of               which she could not get the loan and make the payment.  Thus being

-2-

aggrieved, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking possession of the house and also compensation of Rs.3,44,000/-.

          Respondent on being served denied the allegation that the petitioner could not acquire the loan because of non-supply of the documents by the respondent. 

          District Forum, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties, partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. till realization and further to pay the sum of Rs.12,000/- failing which the complainant was entitled to further interest @ 2% p.a.

          Petitioner as well as the respondent filed separate appeals before the State Commission.  The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.  The appeal filed by the respondent was disposed of with a direction to refund the sum of Rs.1,29,600/- deposited by the respondent before the District Forum in the FDR along with accrued interest thereon upto the date of receipt of payment.  The State

-3-

Commission in para 15 and 16 of its has recorded the following findings:

“15. We have perused impugned Judgment of the learned District Forum. Learned forum has wrongly observed that "There appears to be no truth in the statement of the respondent that origina; copy of the agreement had been supplied to the complainant on 3.3.1994 itself". Because agreement is supplied by the registrar’s office and the person in whose favour agreement has been executed, is competent to collect the original copy from the office of registrar. There is no agreement between M/s Eldeco Housing & Industries Limited and Complainant- Smt. Akshma Kumar with regard to procurement of loan from G.I.C.Housing Finance Company. If at all complainant was desirous of taking house, she could have contacted some other financial institution when G.I.C.Housing Finance Company refused to give loan to her. No company allotting a house, can issue payment certificate unless and until entire payment has been made to it. Albeit, it can issue a certificate of the amount which has been paid to it. But complainant has nowhere mentioned that she needed the certificate for the amount which she had deposited and did not want certificate for the balance money which is yet to be paid by her. In this manner learned District Forum has committed error in not describing in detail the complete facts of the parties.

16. Therefore, in view of above analysis of facts, contentions of the counsels and facts and circumstances of instant case, we come to the conclusion that Complainant had booked a

-4-

house bearing Unit no.122, Akansha Udyan-II with M/s Eldeco Housing & Industries Limited and its allotment number was UD-II/1065 and amended cost of the house was Rs.3,80,270/-. But this cost did not include the cost of boundary and gate. Apart from this, she was also liable to Complainant was entitled to house after 6 months of payment of all the money by her. Complainant had paid Rs.1,44,000/- till 23.2.1994 i.e. the date when amended allotment letter was signed by the Divisional Manager and she was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,36,270/- as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Copy of the Certificate was duly made available to the husband of the complainant. However, complainant wanted to secure loan from G.I.C.Housing Company and for which she needed agreement. Agreement between parties was executed on 3.3.1994 and both the parties signed on this agreement. All the terms and conditions and nature of payment was mentioned in this agreement. All the requirements/facilities which were needed for securing loan by the complainant, were made available by the respondent. Although Respondent was not concerned with the information sought by G.I.C.Housing Finance Limited, but inspite of that respondent helped the complainant in every possible manner. Infact M/s Eldeco Housing & Industries Limited had completed construction of the house in question in February, 1994, by spending money on its own and some money of appellant was also used. M/s Eldeco Housing & Industries Limited constructs houses after obtaining loan from financial institutions and pays interest on the loan amount secured by it. But ’when complainant did not fulfill the terms and conditions of allotment, M/s Eldeco Housing & Industries

-5-

Limited cancelled her allotment. However, inspite of that M/s Eldeco Housing & Industries Limited in the larger interests of allottees, offered and is still ready to pay all the money deposited by the complainant after deducting 10% from this money. Therefore, we find sufficient force in the contentions adduced by Shri R.K.Gupta, learned counsel for M/s Eldeco Housing & Industries Limited.

          Petitioner has filed the present revision petition seeking allotment of the house.

I find myself in the agreement with the findings recorded by the State Commission.  Petitioner was required to make the payment of balance amount and since the petitioner had failed to make the payment, respondent was well within its right to cancel the allotment.  All the terms and conditions for securing the loan were made available to the petitioner while executing the agreement.  The respondents were not concerned with the information sought for by the GIC Housing Finance Limited from the petitioner.  The findings recorded by the fora below are findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

-6-

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission and do not find that there has been any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.  Dismissed.