No one appears for petitioner even on second call, which shows   reluctance of petitioner to prosecute proceeding and revision petition merits dismissal on this count alone, however, we have gone into merit of the case also. 

The factual backgrounds are that petitioner deposited Rs.25,000/- with respondent – Board for getting a house.  Since house was not allotted on deposit of requisite amount by him, he sought refund of  deposit or allotment of house.  There being no break through in the matter, he filed a consumer complaint before District Forum which directed refund of deposit of Rs.25,000/- along with 18% interest.  Compensation of Rs.1000/- as also cost of Rs.1000/- too was awarded by District Forum. 

Dissatisfied with the findings of District Forum, petitioner approached State Commission in appeal which too affirmed findings of District Forum.  The grounds taken in  revision petition by  petitioner was that non allotment of house had caused great  hardship to her and since she was paying Rs.1,000/- rent for a house that needs to be paid to her and hence compensation needs to be enhanced.  Having considered  concurrent findings of the fora below and the grounds taken in revision petition which are not tenable, this revision petition is dismissed for non prosecution as well as on merit.