1.      Heard Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner and carefully gone through the record.

2.      Above revision petition has been filed from the order of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, dated 08.06.2022, passed in FA/926/2012, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant party was allowed and the order of the District Forum was modified to the extent that the opposite party shall return the entire amount deposited by the complainant. Rest of the order of the District Commission was confirmed.

3.      As per report of the Registry, the revision petition has been filed with a delay of 238 days, for which the petitioner has filed IA/6048/2023 for condoning the delay. Subject to objection by the respondent, IA/6048/2023 is allowed and delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

4.      Shri Jitendra Kumar filed consumer complaint No.143 of 2008 with the District Forum, Aligarh for directing the opposite party to (a) execute the lease deed of plot No.D-57 in favour of the complainant; (b) pay Rs.294015.30 alongwith 18% compound interest, if lease deed is not executed; (c) pay damages of Rs.50000/- to the complainant for the pain suffered; and (g) grant any other relief to the complainant as the Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.      The case of the complainant is that on 12.02.1996 he was allotted plot No.D-57 in the Industrial Scheme Talanagri, Aligarh, measuring 820 sq. meter for Rs.294018.35. In the newspapers, the opposite party gave advertisement that they would provide the facility of best road, school, college, park, proper water management and electricity etc. The complainant made payment well within time as per payment schedule but the opposite party sat over the matter and did not issue offer of possession in favour of the complainant nor made any communication in this regard. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.143 of 2008 with the District Forum, Aligarh.

6.      The opposite party contested the complaint by filing the written statement stating that the allotment of the complainant was cancelled. As the complainant failed to abide by the terms & conditions of the allotment, his allotment was cancelled and after deducting the amount as per rules and an amount of Rs.233012/- was refunded to the complainant. As the complainant failed to fulfil the condition for execution of lease deed, the opposite party had no option but to cancel his allotment and accordingly cancelled the allotment, vide letter dated 26.04.2004. Allotment was cancelled only after sending cancellation notice at the address of the complainant. Even the complainant has not given any application for restoration of his plot. He has sent legal notice dated 18.03.2008 after expiry of about two years of cancellation of the allotment.

7.      The District Commission, vide order dated 27.03.2012 partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs.233012.10 alongwith interest paid by the bank on that amount, if the complainant has not encashed the cheque already given by the opposite party. The complainant was also awarded an amount of Rs.2000/- as litigation cost.  

8.      Not satisfied by the order of the District Commission, the complainant preferred First Appeal No.926/2012 with the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum to the extent that the opposite party shall refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant with interest prevalent at the time of depositing the amount. Rest of the order of the District Commission was confirmed.

9.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and carefully examined the record. The only issue involved in this case is whether the opposite party issue pre cancellation notice to the complainant. The opposite party claimed that before cancellation of the allotment, notice was issued to the respondent/complainant, which was not replied by him. Even after cancellation of allotment, the complainant did not file application for restoration of the allotment. In this regard, both the Fora below observed that the opposite party did not produce any evidence to prove that cancellation notice was served upon the complainant and held that allotment was cancelled without notice and said plot was allotted to some other person. The petitioner failed to produce any evidence either before the Fora below or before this Commission that they had served cancellation notice to the complainant. A perusal of the record shows that the complainant had deposited full consideration till 1998. But the petitioner did not issue the letter for possession and served upon the complainant. We find no reason for the complainant in not taking possession after deposit of full consideration. On the other hand, cancellation of allotment of the complainant and allotment of the same to some other person shows unfair and arbitrary act on the part of the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner is that it was an industrial plot and had been obtained for commercial purpose therefore the complaint is not maintainable. This argument cannot be entertained in revision petition inasmuch as an industrial plot cannot be obtained by an individual for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment and in that condition he is still a consumer. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the Fora below against the petitioner.  The petitioner failed to prove anything contrary to the concurrent finding of fact, which otherwise also does not suffer from any illegality. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two Fora below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

O R D E R

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition has no merit and is dismissed.