The dispute relates to 2013, we are in 2019. 1. Heard learned counsels for the revisionists – builder co. and the respondents – complainants. The material on record was perused. 2. The case relates to change in the original site plan of the subject shop allotted to the complainants by the builder co. 3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 03.11.2014 allowed the complaint, inter alia holding that: 4. - - - In our view, the respondents can increase or decrease the area of the shop, but they have no right to debar any allottee from using the basic amenities. It is the obligatory duty of the respondents to provide proper ventilation to the complainants in respect of their shop and they have no right to change the original building plan at their own. The complainants have paid the huge amount to the respondents for the allotment of the shop with all basic amenities and proper ventilation also comes in the basic amenities. In our view, by changing the building plan and by not providing the proper ventilation to the shop no. UG-231 of the complainants, the respondents have indulged themselves into unfair trade practice and they are utilizing the huge amount of the complainants without providing any services to the complainants. In our view, keeping in view statement made by the complainant No. 2, the ends of justice would be fully met if directions are given to the respondents to refund the amount which was deposited by the complainants in respect of shop no. UG-231 alongwith interest. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount which was deposited by the complainants in respect of shop No. UG-231, alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of its deposit till its actual realization. With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed. (para 4 of the District Forum’s Order) 4. The builder co. appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard both sides, appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 09.10.2015 dismissed the appeal, inter alia holding that: 9. As per original site plan Ex. C-1 there was open space on the back side of this unit. Applicant might have booked this units keeping in view availability of ventilation etc at any stage, but, due to permanent structure it is not possession for him to do anything. This appears to be a major change without any necessity. 10. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. (paras 9 and 10 of the State Commission’s Order) 5. This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 09.10.2015 of the State Commission. 6. This bench finds the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission concurred with the District Forum. This bench notes in particular the observations of the two fora quoted in paras 3 and 4 above. This bench notes that the District Forum had ordered the builder co. to refund to the complainant the amount deposited by the complainant with it (Rs. 23,27,632.81/- + Rs. 2,03,553/- = Rs. 25,31,185/-) with interest (@9% p.a.). Within the meanings and scope of section 21(b), this bench finds no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. On the face of it, this bench finds no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice. 7. There is no reason evident to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. 8. The revision petition is dismissed. 9. Needless to add that the District Forum shall proceed with execution as per the law. 10. Let a copy of this Order be sent to the District Forum within ten days by the Registry. | 
