Petitioner, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, floated a scheme for allotment of flats for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) whose monthly income was up to Rs.5,000/-. Respondent applied for the same and submitted her salary certificate to prove that her income was Rs.4,000/-. Petitioner after making -2- enquiry through Birla & Co. came to the conclusion that her monthly income was Rs.15,000/- per month and rejected the application of the respondent on the ground that her income was more than Rs.4,000/-, i.e., Rs.15,000/-. Respondent being aggrieved filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint. District Forum came to the conclusion that the income of the respondent was less than Rs.4,000/- per month and the petitioner had wrongly rejected her application; that the petitioner was deficient in service. Instead of allotting the plot, District Forum directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.3,000/- as costs. Petitioner accepted the order passed by the District Forum and did not file the appeal. Complainant not being satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum filed the appeal before the State Commission seeking allotment of the plot instead of compensation. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to allot a flat to the -3- complainant as per her position in the draw of flats. It may be mentioned here that the respondent was successful in the draw of lots. The relief awarded by the District Forum was sustained. In addition, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs. Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition. The finding recorded by the District Forum, that the petitioner was deficient in service, was accepted by the petitioner as it did not file any appeal against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission. In our view, the petitioner in this revision petition can challenge the order of the State Commission only to the extent it has modified the order of the District Forum. The petitioner had accepted the finding recorded by the District Forum that the petitioner was deficient in service inasmuchas it had wrongly assessed the income of the respondent at Rs.15,000/- per month; that the income of the respondent was Rs.4,000/- only per month. The respondent filed the -4- appeal seeking direction to the petitioner to allot a flat. The State Commission came to the conclusion that since the petitioner had wrongly rejected the claim of the respondent, petitioner was liable to allot the flat instead of compensation, which had been ordered by the District Forum. Since the petitioner had wrongly rejected the claim of the respondent, the petitioner was liable to allot the flat to the respondent. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner except assessing the income of the respondent at Rs.15,000/- per month on oral enquiries, did not produce any evidence to show that the income of the respondent was more than Rs.4,000/- per month. The enquiry officer merely on guess work concluded that the income of the respondent was Rs.15,000/-. No merits. Dismissed. | 
