1.       Repeatedly called out. 

No one appears. 

It is noticed that on the previous date i.e. 23.08.2019 a cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the petitioner for seeking yet another adjournment.

2.       Perused the record.

This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 30.09.2016 of the State Commission in appeal no. 826 of 2016 arising out of the Order dated 02.06.2016 of the District Commission in complaint no. 283 of 2015.

The matter relates to a builder-buyer dispute. The District Commission vide its Order dated 02.06.2016 had ordered the builder co. (the petitioner herein) to pay interest to the complainant (the respondent herein) on an amount of Rs.7,40,000/- at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from 25.11.2006 till realization along with Rs.1,00,000/- in lumpsum. The State Commission vide its Order dated 30.09.2016 had dismissed the appeal, inter alia observing that:

“Payment of Rs.7,40,000/- is not disputed.  The District Forum has allowed interest after nine months from the purchase of booking by the complainant, through as per the booking application, the period of nine months was to start from the date of booking, that is, 8^th September, 2004.  Since, the complainant had purchased the booking on 25^th February, 2006, therefore, the District Forum rightly allowed interest by calculating nine months period from the said date.  In view of this, the relief granted to the complainant appears to be reasonable.  No case for interference is made out.”

3.       The Orders of the two fora below are a matter of record. No useful purpose will be served by reproducing them here all over again. It is seen that the State Commission has passed a well-appraised Order. With reasons given it has concurred with the District Commission. On the face of it there appears no misappreciation of evidence as may cause to require fresh de novo re-appreciation in revision. No jurisdictional error or a legal principle ignored or miscarriage of justice having been occasioned is readily visible. The award made by the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, appears just and equitable in the facts of the case. 

4.       Seeing from the perusal of record that no good ground is apparently forthcoming to justify interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission, we are not feeling hesitant in dismissing the case in default for lack of prosecution.

5.       As such the revision petition stands dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.

6.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.