1.      These two Revision Petitions No.1523 and 1524 of 2022 have been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘the Act’) by the Petitioner/Complainant against the impugned orders dated 22.07.2022, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (State Commission) in FA Nos. 149 and 151 of 2021 respectively. Vide Order dated 22.07.2022, the State Commission dismissed the said Appeals of the Petitioner/ Complainant and affirmed the Orders dated 25.09.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jashpur (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint Nos.CC/2020/05 & CC/2020/06 respectively wherein both the complaints filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant were dismissed.

2.      Since the facts and questions of law involved in both the Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for minor variations in dates and events, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, R.P. No.1523 of 2022 shall be considered as the lead case, and the facts presented below are drawn from Consumer Complaint No. CC/2020/05.

3.      For convenience, the parties are being referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4.      Brief facts, as per the complainant, are that he filed a complaint before District Forum under Section 35 of the Act, 2019, against the OP regarding the failure to complete the construction of a house as per the advertisement and terms of the sale deed for building LIG-25 under the self-financing scheme of Atal Vihar Yojana. He sought possession of the building and compensation of Rs.10,000 per month for the delay, along with litigation expenses and other reliefs. Both parties admitted that the complainant was allotted LIG-25 under the self-financing scheme after depositing registration fee on 11.12.2015. The cost of building was Rs.9,71,000, and he deposited Rs.96,500 towards this amount. The Complainant averred that according to an advertisement by the OP dated 15.03.2011 there was a provision for 5% rebate on sale price, if full payment was made in a lump sum. The sale deed was to be executed within two years of registration, and possession was to be handed over. However, the construction was not completed within stipulated period, causing him to incur rental expenses of Rs.1,000 per month. He claimed that the OP’s failure to complete the construction constitutes a deficiency in service.

5.      In their Written Version before the District Forum, OP denied the complainant's allegations, except for some accepted facts. OP asserted that the complainant was supposed to pay the sale price in four equal instalments, as per the allotment order. The 5% rebate applied only to those who paid the entire amount in a lump sum, which the Complainant did not do. He originally had different building (Building No. 6) allotted but voluntarily transferred it to LIG-25. The construction of LIG-25 was completed on 19.01.2017, and the sale deed was executed and registered on 14.08.2018. The possession of the building was offered to him on 30.09.2018, but he failed to take possession. He filed the complaint on 17.03.2020, which was time-barred as the cause of action arose on 11.12.2015. They also cited Clause 37 of the allotment order, which vested jurisdiction over disputes with the Commissioner of the Chhattisgarh Housing Board in Raipur, requesting dismissal of the complaint as it lacked merit.

6.      The District Forum in its Order dated 22.08.2017 dismissed the complaint with the following observations:

“19. After careful consideration, this District Commission comes to the conclusion that there has been no deficiency in service against the complainant by the Opposite Parties.  Any kind of relief from the parties against the complainant on the above grounds not entitled to receive any relief.  Therefore, the question under consideration is concluded as “not established”.

20. The complaint submitted by the complainant is dismissed as not acceptable under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (amended section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).”

                      (Extracted from translated copy)

7.      Being aggrieved by the District forum order, the Petitioner/ Complainant filed Appeal No. 149/2021 and the State Commission vide Order dated 22.07.2022 dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the Order of the District Forum, with following observations:

“Preliminary arguments were heard.

The appellant's advocate submits that his case was not based on clause-10 of the terms and conditions related to the allotment of the building, but his case was based on the clause-41 of the terms and conditions related to the allotment of the building. Rule-10 and Rule-41 for easy reference in this and the type mentioned is: -

"10. On depositing all the four equal instalments together with the amount of the first instalment as per the table given in the allotment order after registration, the allottee will be given the rebate of 5% on the sale price of the property.

41. After the completion of the project, third party inspection will be done before handing over the possession of the building to the allottee, in which the allottee, the second party will be the concerned Executive Engineer and the third party will be the other officers ordered by the Board. If any deficiencies are found in the inspection, the Executive Engineer will rectify the same within 15 days and inform the allottee. If even after this, the allottee is not satisfied, then the concerned Deputy Commissioner of that area will be able to submit an application regarding the errors/ shortcomings to the Chhattisgarh Housing Board. The concerned Executive Engineer will be directed by the Deputy Commissioner to resolve the dispute within a period of 15 days. Accordingly, after the solution, if the allottee is still not satisfied, he can get back his entire deposit with interest.

He also submits that he has taken possession of the building and the deficiencies pointed out in the construction of the building. It was pointed out by the concerned opposite Parties/Respondents to remove them, but those deficiencies have not yet been removed. Therefore, the appeal should be accepted for final hearing.

We observed the order passed by the concerned District Forum Dated- 25.09.2021 which has been passed bearing the case number-CC/2020/05, and saw the original records and also observed the pleadings of the complainant.

According to Clause (41) of the terms and conditions related to the allotment of the building, the clear plea is not mentioned in the complaint letter of the complainant. Besides this, this clause is attracted before possession, when the complainant has taken possession, then "this clause ceases to operate".

The concerned District Commission in paragraph-4, 13, 17 and other paragraphs of its order and have set aside the complaint as not maintainable, it is based on proper and legal facts.

We do not find anything to justify taking up this appeal for final hearing.

We, therefore, set aside this appeal being infructuous at the stage of preliminary hearing itself. Appellant of this appeal Disputes will bear the expenses himself.

A certified true copy of the order supplied to the appellant free of cost.

Accordingly, the appeal was set aside.”

(Extracted from translated copy)

8.      Being dissatisfied by the Order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner / Complainant filed the instant Revision Petitions.

9.      The learned counsel for Petitioner/Complainant reiterated the issues raised in the complaint and the Memo of Appeal as well as grounds taken in the instant Revision Petitions and sought to allow the Revision Petitions and set aside the orders of the fora below.

10.    The learned Counsel for the Respondent/ OP argued in favour of the concurrent finding of the fora below.  He sought to dismiss the Revision Petitions with costs and relied upon the following judgments:

A. Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC OnLine 748;

B. Mrs. Rubi Chandra Dutta v. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269;

C. Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. V. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 286.

11.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both the parties.

12.    It is clear that in terms of the policy in question under which the Complainant purchased the residential unit provided for 5% discount/rebate to those who paid the entire amount in lumpsum.  The Complainant did not do any such lumpsum payment.  Therefore, claim for such rebate is untenable. 

13.    The learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments passed a detailed order dismissing the Appeal.

14.    It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act, 2019 confers limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings with well-reasoned orders. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

15.    In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2022 dated 21.01.2022 held:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

16.    Similarly, in a recent order the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its 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. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

17.    Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petitions No.1523 and 1524 of 2022 and the same are therefore, Dismissed.

18.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

19.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.