1.       Repeatedly called out.

No one appears. 

2.       Perused the record.

This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 10.07.2012 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1540 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 30.04.2007 of the District Commission in complaint no. 192 of 2006.

The dispute relates to demand of an additional amount of Rs. 1,06,275/- made by the development  authority (the respondents herein) from the complainants (the petitioners herein) towards the sale consideration for a shop.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 30.04.2007 ordered for refund of the said amount of Rs. 1,06,275/- (if deposited) with interest at the rate of 10% per annum w.e.f. the date of deposit till realisation. It also awarded Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.

The development authority appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 10.07.2012 made its appraised of the case and for reasons recorded accepted the appeal. It set aside the Order of the District Commission and dismissed the complaint.

3.       We notice that the crux of the matter has been aptly captured by the State Commission in the following extract of its appraisal:

- - - From the perusal of record, it is a case wherein the appellant-opposite parties have demanded a sum of Rs. 1,06,275/- from the complainant on the basis of audit report. Admittedly no due certificate was issued to the complainant but the same was issued by the opposite parties subject to audit report. When the audit party pointed out some amount due towards consumer the appellant-opposite parties have no other option but to recover the same from the consumer and such a demand raised by the opposite parties cannot be termed as deficiency in service. The members of the audit party keep check and balance on the spending & income of various departments of the Government and authorities. The complainant cannot raise such a plea that no due certificate has been issued to him and therefore, the amount pointed out by the audit party is not recoverable. In case any official recovers inadequate amount from the complainant, it would not debar the authorities not to recover the increased amount as pointed out by the audit party. The District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the actual controversy involved in this case and committed grave error while accepting the complaint and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.- - -

4.       We see that the complainants are in possession of the subject unit. A no dues certificate issued to them was subject to audit. The additional demand (of Rs. 1,06,275/-) was based on the subsequent audit. There is nothing on record to show that the complainants had been discriminated against or differently treated in relation to other similarly situate persons.

We find that the State Commission has passed a well-appraised Order, it has given apt reasons for accepting the appeal and dismissing the complaint. No palpable jurisdictional error or material irregularity is readily visible.

Having perused the record and seeing that no good ground to interfere in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is manifestly forthcoming, we have no hesitation in dismissing the case in default for lack of prosecution.

5.       The revision petition stands dismissed.

6.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the revision as well as to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.