JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission.”) dated 15.3.2013 in first appeal No.159/2013 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum Panchkula in consumer complaint No.70/2012. 2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a writ petition formulated a policy known as Ashiana/JNNRUM scheme for allotment of EWS plots to the jhuggi jhopdi dwellers at HUDA land. The original scheme was applicable only to those jhuggi dwellers who were party / petitioners in the matters pending before the High Court / Supreme Court. The policy was further modified on 10.02.2010 to accommodate more persons with a view to get the jhuggis cleared. The respondent opposite party further came out with a policy dated 24.10.2011 to include the names of the persons appearing in the Survey list who were presently living in a jhuggi in Azad Bharat Colony in the list of eligible persons for allotment of flat. 3. The petitioner filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Panchkula claiming that pursuant to the aforesaid scheme floated by HUDA, he applied for allotment under Ashiyana/JNNURM scheme and deposited a sum of Rs.8000/- in the HUDA bank account maintained in Indian Bank Sector 6 Panchkula. It is the case of the complainant that though he had applied for allotment and deposited the fee, he was not allotted a plot or a flat under the scheme. The complainant visited HUDA office on many occasions to find out the fate of his application but in vain. For those visits, he incurred expense of Rs.4400/- for each trip. Claiming the failure of the respondent to allot the plot / flat to be deficiency in service, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint seeking directions to the HUDA to allot him a plot of 100 sq. yds under the above noted policy as the complainant belong to economically weaker section. The complainant also prayed for award on compensation. 4. The respondent opposite party resisted the claim. In the written statement, respondent took the plea that the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility criteria under the policy as he was neither a party to the writ petition nor he was resident of Azad Bharat Colony and nor his name finds mention in Survey list of the occupants of said colony. Thus according to the respondent OP, the petitioner not being eligible for allotment under the scheme, there is no deficiency in service on their part. 5. The petitioner in his rejoinder took a stand that he had applied for free of cost allotment of a plot under Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojna launched by the Government and in that regard he had already submitted application form alongwith fee of Rs.8000/-. 6. Learned District Forum on consideration of record did not find merit in complaint and dismissed the same with a detailed reasoned order. 7. The petitioner not being satisfied with the order of the District Forum preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed. 8. The petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders of the foras below are not sustainable for the reason that the foras below have failed to appreciate that the petitioner on 23.4.2010 had submitted his application for allotment under the scheme and even deposited the earnest money of Rs.8,000/-. Despite that the respondent/opposite party has failed to allot the plot under EWS scheme without any justification. It is further contended that the foras below have failed to appreciate that in view of the statement of the Pradhan of Azad Bharat Colony, he was residing there for the last 15 years and as such he was eligible for allotment of the plot. The petitioner has thus urged us to accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and allow the complaint with an appropriate order. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned orders. 10. We have considered the rival contentions. On perusal of record, it transpires that both the foras below have returned a concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner. The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission flows from Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is reproduced thus: (b) 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 a 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”. 11. On reading of the above, it is evident that National Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can interfere with the order of the foras below only if there is a jurisdiction error or material irregularity. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to point out any material irregularity in the impugned order for the reason that petitioner has not been able to establish that he fulfils the eligibility criteria under the Aashiana/JNNRUM scheme floated by HUDA. The petitioner argued that that he was occupant of Azad Bharat Colony, as such covered under the eligibility criteria. In this regard, he has referred to the statement of Pradhan of Azad Bharat Colony. We do not find merit in this contention for the reason that perusal of the application form submitted by the petitioner would show that in coloumn ‘8’ of the form, he has shown his address as H.No.267, Sector 10 Panchkula and mentioned that he has been residing there for the last seven years. That being the case, the petitioner does not fall within the category of persons presently living in the said jhuggi as on the date of another policy dated 24.10.2011. Thus under the circumstances, the respondent authority cannot be faulted for not allotting the plots / flats to the petitioner complainant. 12. Further the State Commission relying upon the judgment of this Commission in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Anr. Vs. Krishan Pal Chander 2010 CTJ 415 has taken a view that since the petitioner was only an applicant, he does not fall within the definition of consumer because allotment of plot / flat was yet to be done. The aforesaid view of the State Commission cannot be faulted. 13. In view of the discussion above, we do not find merit in the revision petition. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
