Delay of 16 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 29.08.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short tate Commission in appeal No. 1494/2011 against the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer, by which, the complaint of the complainant was partly allowed and the petitioner housing board was directed to deliver the possession of the allotted premises to the complainant within one month with facilities as per the norms and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the State Commission dismissed the appeal by means of a detailed order. 2. We have heard counsel Mr. Milind Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. He would assail the concurrent findings of the Fora below primarily on the ground that the there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner housing board inasmuch as possession of the house allotted to the complainant was offered to him as far back as in 2008 and it was the complainant who himself did not come-forward to take possession and, therefore, the delay, if any, was on account of the fault of the complainant himself. The question has been considered by the Fora below in great details and lastly by the State Commission by observing as under:- t has been noticed in various disputes in regard to houses of the Housing Board before us tht the Housing Board is always using double edge weapon by asking the allottee to take possession of defective house and then make representation for repairs and in case the possession is not taken either the allotment is cancelled or heavy penalty is imposed. The person spends hard earned money on getting a house from the Housing Board. It is expected from the authorities also to check the quality of material and construction of the house from time to time and only after the house is completed a proper certificate of completion without any defect should be issued by the competent engineer and only then the possession should be given to the allottee. In such circumstances not only the concerned engineers but the contractors also can be held liable. In the present case in spite of asking for such certificate the same has been denied on superfluous technical grounds. 3. In our view the concurrent findings given by the Fora below are based on correct appreciation and the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material brought on record and do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error which warrants interference of this Commission in its supervisory jurisdiction. In this view we are fully fortified by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of rs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [II (2010) CPJ 19 (SC)], in which Supreme Court has reiterated the legal position that National Commission should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction / revisional power only in exceptional cases where there is either jurisdictional error or the orders passed by Fora below have resulted into miscarriage of justice. In the present case we do not think that any of the two circumstances exist which would justify the interference of this Commission in its supervisory jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed as devoid of any merits. Dismissed.