ORDER PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2.5.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Circuit Bench-II (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 2268 of 2010, Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. vs. Shri Brijmohan Sharma & Anr., by which, appeal was partly allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner was allotted shop by opposite party/respondent on 22.1.2007 in auction and complainant deposited Rs.1,48,500/- being 25% on 13.2.2007 and Rs.2,23,000/- were deposited on 14.2.2007, but possession was not handed over to the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party inspite of being given opportunity did not file written statement and he was proceeded ex-parte. Learned District forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to handover possession of shop and further directed to pay Rs.7,000/- as cost. Appeal filed by opposite party was dismissed by learned State Commission and in revision petition No. 2007 of 2014 filed by opposite party, this Commission by order dated 8.9.2015, remanded back the matter to learned State Commission to decide appeal by speaking order. 3. Learned State Commission in pursuance to aforesaid order and after hearing the parties passed impugned order and allowed appeal partly and directed opposite party to refund deposited amount of Rs.3,71,500/- with 15% p.a. interest and further directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.31,000/- towards litigation cost, against which this Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that as petitioner made payment as per terms and conditions of auction, learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal partly and setting aside the direction giving possession of plot; hence Revision Petition be admitted. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioner could not place any document on record to depict that auction bid was confirmed by opposite party. On the other hand, learned State Commission observed in impugned order that by order dated 26.10.2007, opposite party cancelled all the bids and once all the bids stood cancelled, complainant was not entitled to possession of plot in auction and learned State Commission has not committed any error in directing opposite party to refund amount. Learned State Commission has already allowed refund with interest and has also allowed compensation for mental harassment and litigation cost. Learned State Commission has rightly allowed appeal partly and set aside order of District Forum directing opposite party to hand over possession of plot. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by petitioner is dismissed at admission stage. |
