PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant challenging the order dated 6.9.2012 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (tate Commissionfor short) in F.A. No.1698 of 2010 by which the State Commission accepted the appeal of the respondent/opposite party and set aside the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the District Forum, Rewa in consumer complaint No.247 of 2009. By its order in question, the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the petitioner in terms of the following directions:- . The respondent is ordered to return an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- which was illegally received by raising the cost of the house from Rs.7,26,000/- to Rs.8,86,000/-within 30 days. The respondent should also pay the interest of 12% on the said amount from 17.12.2009 till the date is returned. The respondent also pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as financial lose, mental and physical harassment during the mentioned period separately. 2. The respondent should bear the self expenses and also the suit expenses of appellant and will pay Rs.1,000/- as the cost of the case.

2. The factual matrix of this case in brief are that the respondent Board had advertised and invited offers for Junior HIG houses of estimated price of Rs.7,26,000/-. It had been clarified by the respondent Board that the actual cost will be assessed after construction of the house. The houses were completed in 2010 and on completion, the price calculated came to Rs.8,86,000/-. The entire amount was paid by the petitioner and he was allotted a house on 3.9.2009 and the sale deed was also executed on 7.5.2010. After occupying the house, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum for refund of Rs.1,60,000/- which was the difference between the amount charged by the Board and the estimated price indicated in the advertisement. The District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order reproduced above. The State Commission while reversing the order of the District Forum has recorded the following finding in support of the impugned order:- he perusal of the advertisement shows that it was made clear at the inceptive stage that the cost of the house was estimated cost and the allottee will pay the final cost after completion of the house. It is not a case where escalation is being demanded but the case where final cost of the house is being charged. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the allottee was not entitled to refund of difference between the two amounts namely estimated amount and the final cost.

3. We have heard the petitioner who has himself pleaded his case. The basic facts of this case are not in dispute and the State Commission has passed the impugned order non-suiting the claim of the petitioner based on the admitted factual position and conditions of allotment which were already known to the petitioner. He has not produced anything which would persuade us to take a different view. The impugned order of the State Commission being a fair and just order, we do not see any reason to differ with it. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.