1.       The present revision has been filed against the order dated 3.7.2015 of the State Commission in Appeal No.165/2004 whereby the appeal field by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 19.12.2003 allowing the complaint of the respondent (hereinafter called “the complainant”), was allowed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the complainant submitted an application to the petitioner for allotment of the land for starting a school thereon. A plot No.70W/1 under the Juhi Scheme, Kanpur having area of 5167

-2-

 sq. meter at the rate of Rs.86/- sq. meter for 99 years lease at the rate of Rs.10/- per month rent  was allotted to the complainant. The complainant had to deposit 1/4^th of the amount i.e. Rs.1,10,481.40 of the total premium within 30 days of the allotment and the balance 3/4^th of the amount @ 10% interest in six years in 12 biannual installments. The complainant after receiving the allotment letter deposited the 1/4^th amount with the petitioner on 6.8.1984 i.e. within the stipulated period of 30 days. Since the possession of the plot was not given to the complainant and since his request to receive the lumpsum alongwith interest, if any, was not acceded to and since his communications were not replied by the petitioner, learning that the subject plot was allotted to some other person, he filed the complaint.

3.       The defence of the petitioner had been that since the complainant had not complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and had not deposited the money as required, he had no cause of action in his favour and the complaint was liable to the dismissed. It is further contended that a letter dated 28.11.1998 was sent to the complainant which he received on 2.12.1998 whereby it was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.30,60,228.20 towards the allotted plot but the complainant failed to deposit the same. On these contentions, it was submitted that the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The parties led their evidences  before  the  District  Forum.  After  hearing  the  parties the District

-3-

 Forum vide its detailed order rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner and allowed the complaint.

4.       This order was impugned before the State Commission. Before the State Commission the plea taken was that it was the complainant who had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and hence he was not entitled for any relief and that the complaint was liable to be dismissed. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and re-appreciating and reassessing the evidences on record, the State Commission has held as under: -

“The complainant after continuous oral contracts, taken up written proceedings in the year 1996. The allotment of plot to the other society without cancelling the allotment in favour of the complainant, denotes that the development authority, knowingly and intentionally in pursuance of conspiracy, did not realize the remaining 3/4^th amount from the complainant so that by one or other manner, the plot allotted to the complainant, may be allotted to any other one. This act on behalf of Kanpur Development Authority, not only is deficiency in service but also shows illegal practices on its part. The development authority with intention to harass the complainant, first issued notice directing to deposit Rs.31 lakh and then again issued notice directing to deposit Rs.71 lakh which was fully inappropriate  since the complainant continuously by depositing the remaining amount for the allotted plot as per the contract was willing to take possession of the same. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant  Jawahat Vidya Samiti got allotted the aforesaid plot for opening up of a school and the aforesaid plot was allotted in the year 1984. If the plot would have been allotted to the complainant within time, the educational institution might have been constructed up till now and the students might get education from the school but due to the cussedness on behalf of the development authority it could not be

-4-

 possible while about 30 years have been elapsed after allotment of the plot. The District Forum after considering the entire circumstances of the case directed to realize the remaining 3/4^th amount of Rs.3,31,444.22 with interest of 10% for the period from 11.5.1984 to 22.3.1997 which is in accordance of the conditions of the allotment. The Development Authority intentionally did not realize the amount after 22.3.1997. Therefore, it is not entitled to realize the interest for that period.

5.       The State Commission dismissed the appeal. This order is impugned before me. The contention is that since the complainant had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter it is not entitled for any relief. My attention is drawn to the allotment letter dated 11.5.1984 and it is argued that as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein, the complainant was to make the payment which he had failed to do. The terms and conditions of the allotment letter are reproduced as under: -

“1.     In the beginning the agreement to lease would be executed with the society and the time which would be fixed for construction would be two years.

2.       After issuance of the allotment letter, the society will have to deposit 1/4^th amount of the total premium within 30 days of issuance of allotment letter.

3.       Balance 3/4^th amount would be payable alongwith 10% interest in 12 fix monthly installments for a period of 6 years.

4.       If the society constructs the building as per the map passed by the authority, then regular lease deed would be executed.

5.       Society would not use the aforesaid land for any commercial purpose.

6.       In condition of violation of the aforementioned conditions, the authority would have right to take back the allotted land.”

-5-

6.       It is apparent that the first condition of this letter is that the petitioner had to execute lease deed in favour of the society and on enquiry it is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no agreement to lease was executed in favour of the complainant. Therefore, it is clear that it is the petitioner itself had failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. As regards other contentions relating to payment of balance money is concerned, there are concurrent findings on this issue by both the Fora below which clearly says that the complainant is not responsible for such default. These findings are based on the evidences led by the parties.

7.       The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. This Commission is not required to reassess or re-appreciate the evidences and substitute its opinion to the concurrent findings of fact by the Fora below. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269  has held as under: -

“13.        Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal  principle  that  was  ignored by the Courts below, but on a

-6-

 different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

8.       Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“23. The  National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

9.       The petitioner has failed to point out any miscarriage of justice or that the findings are perverse i.e. not based on the evidences. I found no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.