This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Lucknow Development Authority, against the order dated 14.6.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission”) passed in Appeal No.1587 of 2013.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant was allotted a house under the draw of plots by the petitioner.  Later on petitioner cancelled the allotment of the respondent vide their letter dated 02.09.2001. Later on respondent/complainant preferred a consumer complaint bearing No.450 of 2003 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Additional Bench, Lucknow (in short ‘the District Forum’).  The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party by stating that some of the receipts filed by the complainant were not genuine.  The District Forum vide its order dated 24.04.2013 allowed the complaint as under:-

“ORDER

Complaint is here allowed.  Since the opposite party, after cancelling the allotment of Complainant, has allotted the disputed house to some other applicant, therefore, the opposite party is hereby directed to allot a house in the same Yojana having same measurement at the same price (i.e. Rs.25,000 that had been paid by the complainant) to the complainant within two months on receiving certified copy of the judgment and handover possession thereof to the complainant and also execute registered sale deed at the cost of complainant within two months.  In case of non-availability of a house in the aforesaid Yojana, another house of the same specifications be allotted to the complainant in other Yojana and possession thereof be handed over and registry be executed in favour of complainant within the same period. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as fee of counsel.  The Opposite Party shall pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant after adjusting the payable amount of Rs.1039.70 as per the allotment letter dated 20.8.1990.”

3.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed vide its order dated 14.6.2017.

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. 

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that out of Rs.25,000/-, receipts in respect of about Rs.9,000/-  are not tallying with the record of the petitioner Authority and they are not genuine and the same was claimed in the written statement.  However, both the fora below have not considered this aspect.

7.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record.  In fact both the fora below have observed that the petitioner Authority has not filed any proof to disprove the claim of the complainant that the complainant had deposited the total amount.  The District Forum has clearly stated that though the Secretary of the petitioner Authority had stated that he will be filing an FIR in the matter, however, no copy of such FIR was produced before the District Forum.  After even this observation by the District Forum, the petitioner herein did not file any further documents or proof at the appellate stage.  To justify that certain receipts filed by the complainant are fake and the amount has not been received by the petitioner Authority, at the stage of the revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is having one letter wherein the complainant has admitted that some of the receipts are fake.  However, this document was not filed either before the District Forum or before the State Commission though it pertains to the year when the allotment was cancelled.   The purpose behind not filing this document before the fora below is not clear. The evidence has to be adduced before the trial court mainly and then any leftover evidence can be produced at the appellate stage, but the petitioner Authority has failed in adducing the proper evidence at that level.  Hence, no reliance can be placed on this document at this stage. 

8.  Both the fora below have given concurrent finding and the scope under the revision petition is very limited to reassess the facts as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:-

(1) Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

(2) 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 held 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.      Relying upon the above authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the facts cannot be reassessed at the level of revision petition when the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts.  As the question of payment is a question of fact, I am of the view that this fact now cannot be reassessed by this Commission in the revision petition.  Apart from this discrepancy, no other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any merit in the revision petition.  Accordingly, the revision petition No.2454 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.