This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Sanjeev Deewan against the order dated 30.05.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT. Chandigarh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.146 of 2018.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had booked a flat with the opposite party in a pre-launch offer and deposited Rs.5,00,000/- with the opposite party.  Later on the petitioner/complainant asked for refund and the opposite party refunded Rs.4,00,000/- only.  Then the petitioner filed a complaint bearing No.CC/76/2016 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh, (in short ‘the District Forum’), which was resisted by the opposite party and finally District Forum vide its order dated 06.02.2018 passed the following order:-

“10. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party or that the opposite party adopted any unfair trade practice.  As such, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

3.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/complainant preferred an appeal bearing No.146 of 2018 before the State Commission and the same has also been dismissed by the State Commission on the ground of limitation as well as on merit vide its order dated 30.05.2018.

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.   Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he has deposited Rs.5,00,000/- under a pre-launch offer.  However, there was no progress.  He asked for the refund.  The opposite party refunded only Rs.4,00,000/- after deducting 20% of the deposited amount.  Learned counsel stated that the District Forum and the State Commission have relied upon an affidavit filed by the complainant wherein the complainant had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the refund.  It was stated by the learned counsel that actually there was no agreement signed between the parties. Even, no allotment letter was issued so, there was no question of there being any terms and conditions for refund.  Thus, the fora below have erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no agreement between the parties, therefore, the opposite party is bound to refund the total amount along with the interest.

6.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record.  The District Forum while dismissing the complaint has observed the following:-

“7.   Annexure R-10 is an affidavit-cum-indemnity bond (Annexure R-10) submitted by the complainant at the time of seeking refund.  A perusal of the same shows that the complainant had voluntarily submitted to the effect that refund be made to him after making appropriate deductions as per the policy of the Company.  Interestingly, the complainant has got the refund cheque encashed and purposely concealed the said affidavit-cum-undertaking (Annexure R-10) from this Forum.   This clearly shows malafide intention of the Complainant in filing the present consumer complaint.”

7.      From the above, it seems that there was some affidavit-cum-indemnity bond signed by the complainant at the time of taking refund, wherein the complainant had agreed that refund may be made after making appropriate deduction as per the policy of the company.  It is to be noted that the petitioner/complainant has not filed copy of this affidavit-cum-indemnity bond with this revision petition before this Commission.  Moreover, it has been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has signed any such affidavit-cum-indemnity bond.  The State Commission has also observed the same thing in the body of its judgment in addition to making an observation that the appeal was time barred.

8.      From the above examination, it is clear that the petitioner/complainant has already agreed for deduction as per the policy of the company and therefore, even though there was no agreement, but there may be a policy of the company for refund under which the refund has been made by the opposite party, therefore, the complainant cannot now object to this refund.  Moreover, both the fora below have given concurrent finding of fact and this Commission cannot reassess the fact as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the following:

“23.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.  In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”   

9.      Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 30.05.2018 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, RP No.1795 of 2018 stands dismissed at the admission stage.