1. This revision was filed on 03.04.2018 against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur dated 07.11.2017 passed in Appeal No.315 of 2015 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (2nd), Jodhpur dated 21.08.2013 passed in CC/80/2011) whereby the complaint was dismissed and the appeal has also been dismissed. 2. This Commission, vide letter dated 10.04.2018 wrote to the petitioner, pointed out the defect in the revision inasmuch as the copies of the complaint, reply, rejoinder and evidence of the parties filed before the District Forum were not filed. Then the petitioner wrote a letter dated 25.07.2018 to this Commission mentioning therein that due to financial difficulties, he was unable to attend the Commission and his revision be decided on merit on the basis of papers already attached along with the revision. Although this Commission later on, vide order dated 24.01.2019, appointed an Amicus Curiae for the petitioner but the Amicus Curiae sought for her discharge on the ground that in the meantime, she was appointed before another place and was no more in the profession of Advocacy. Finding no alternative, we propose to decide the revision on merit. 3. The office has submitted a report that the revision has been filed with a delay of 59 days. The petitioner has filed IA/10850/2019 for condoning the delay in filing the revision. It has been stated that the petitioner was not having good health as such he could not contact with his Counsel appearing before the State Commission. In the month of March, 2018, when he recovered, then he contacted with the Counsel who informed that the appeal had already been dismissed on 07.11.2017. Thereafter, he collected the papers and filed this revision on 03.04.2018. Cause shown is sufficient. Subject to any objection in this respect, we condone the delay in filing the revision. 4. The fact of the case was that the petitioner filed CC/80/2011 for allotting a residential plot to him or in the alternative, to return his money of Rs.8000/- along with interest. It has been stated that the erstwhile Urban Development Trust, Jodhpur launched a residential scheme in the name of ‘Vijayraje Nagar’ for the persons belonging to medium income group. The petitioner was falling in the category of medium income group and he applied for allotment of the residential plot vide application no. 17107 and as required, has also attached a bank draft number 950621 of Rs.8000/- dated 30.03.2007. Thereafter, the Urban Development Trust, Jodhpur drew the lottery and on the basis of lottery, allotted the residential plot to the persons in whose favour, the lottery was drawn. The Urban Development Trust, Jodhpur neither informed the petitioner about date of drawing lottery nor gave any information that he was not selected in the lottery and did not return his money of Rs.8000/-, although the petitioner various times, went to the office of the Respondent and made enquiry in respect of allotment of residential plot. Finding no alternative, the petitioner gave a notice dated 20.03.2010 (served on 23.03.2010) to the respondent to allot him a residential plot or return his money along with interest but the Opposite Party did not did not give any reply to the notice. Therefore, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 21.08.2010 to the opposite party. In spite of service of legal notice, the opposite party has neither replied it nor returned the money of the petitioner. On these allegations, the complaint was filed on 20.01.2011. 5. The respondent contested the complaint and filed its written reply in which it has been stated that under the scheme of ‘Vijayraje Nagar’, the applications were invited from eligible persons. After expiry of due date for submission of application, the allotments were done adopting the lottery system for which vide publicity fixing the date of allotment was given. On the date of lottery, the petitioner was not selected. Therefore, a bank draft of Rs.8000/- was sent to the petitioner on the address as mentioned in the application form. The petitioner has refused to accept the registered cover of Speed Post and returned it and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and complaint was liable to be dismissed. 6. The District Forum, after hearing the parties, vide judgment dated 21.08.2013, held that the petitioner was not selected for allotment in the lottery. Therefore, his money was returned to him through Speed Post which was refused by the petitioner. As such, the complaint was not maintainable. However, in the interest of justice, it has been observed that the petitioner may go to the office of the respondent and collect his Rs.8000/- at any date. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in Appeal Number 315 of 2015 which has been dismissed by the order dated 07.11.2017. Hence, this revision has been filed. 7. We have examined the record. Both District Forum and State Commission have concurrently held that in the selection through lottery system, the petitioner was not selected. Therefore, his application money of Rs.8000/- was returned through Speed Post which was refused by the petitioner. This is a concurrent finding of fact and this Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact as no illegality has been pointed out in it. On the other hand, the allegations as made by the petitioner in the complaint as well as in the notice dated 20.03.2010 and 21.08.2010, it appears that the petitioner was demanding for allotment of an alternative residential plot. Therefore, the circumstances also show that the petitioner might have refused to accept the money. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and no interference is required by this Commission. 8. However, the District Forum has already protected the interest of the petitioner and authorized him to go to the office of the respondent and collect his Rs.8000/- without any interest at any time. In such circumstances, the revision is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application for return of his money giving all the details within a period of two months from the date a copy of the judgment is served upon him and in case any such application is filed, then the respondent shall return Rs.8000/- within one month from the filing of the application. ORDER In view of the aforesaid observation, the revision is disposed of. |
