1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 28.04.2022, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1455/2008. In this appeal, the Petitioner/Opposite Party appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the Order dated 21.06.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 105 of 2007 wherein the complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent was allowed.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. Sushil Ahuja through Deepak Sharma (GPA Holder) is referred to as the Complainant. Chief Executive Officer, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) is referred to as the OP Authority.

3.      In brief, the OP Authority (NOIDA) initially allotted plot no         F-138, measuring 189 square meters in sector 41. At the request of the Original Allottee, the OP Authority changed the allotment to plot No. A-144, Sector 31 Noida, with an area of 202 square meters. The Original Allottee deposited the required conversion fee as demanded by the authority. Subsequently, on 03.08.2005, the OP Authority executed a lease deed in favor of the original allottee and handed over possession of the plot. A no dues certificate was also issued. The Complainant initially purchased the property from the original allottee through General Power of Attorney (GPA) on 26.03.1999, fulfilling all financial obligations including stamp duty payments as directed by the OP. However, despite repeated requests, the OP Authority did not execute the transfer deed in favor of the Complainant, citing a purported case pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court related to plots, though no such dispute or case exists concerning the plot purchased by the Complainant. This failure to execute the transfer deed constitutes a deficiency in service by the OP. Aggrieved by this decision, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint (No. 105 of 2007) before the District Forum, seeking the transfer of the allotted plot in his name, compensation for the increase in circle rate from the date of allotment, and additional compensation of Rs.80,000/- for mental anguish.

4.      In reply, the OP Authority admitted the facts stated by the Complainant and stated that in the present case, the conversion or change of plot was initiated due to non-payment of the required amount against the original plot, which was contrary to the rules at the relevant time. The OP Authority mentioned that there are 187 similar cases pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and no directions have been issued by the court regarding these cases. Since the case of the Complainant is also of a similar nature, they were informed of these facts, and the transfer deed was not executed by the OP Authority. Additionally, the OP Authority argued that the Complaint is time-barred and of a civil nature, falling beyond the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. Therefore, they requested for its dismissal.

5.      The District Forum in its Order dated 21.06.2008 accepted/ allowed the complaint with following findings and reliefs:-

"…. In the instant case the main point which needs consideration is this that whether opposite party while not executing transfer deed has committed deficiency of service? In this regard, on behalf of opposite party only one submission has been made that other 187 similarly situated cases like the complainant are pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Because plot of complainant is also of similar nature, hence transfer deed cannot be executed in favour of complainant. From the submissions of both the parties, it is undisputed that case pertaining to the plot of complainant is not involved in 187 cases which are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Because plot of complainant is not pending consideration either before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or before any court of law, in such circumstances, complainant is entitled for execution of transfer deed in his favour. It is also pertinent to mention that stay order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been produced on record. In such circumstances non execution of Transfer deed in favour of complainant and depriving him from physical possession is undisputedly an act of deficiency in service by the opposite party…..”

ORDER

          “Complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party is directed that transfer deed of plot in question be executed in favour of complainant within 2 month of receiving of this order and hand over physical possession of same to the complainant. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs 2500/- against mental torture and harassment and Rs 2000/- on account of cost of complaint to the complainant. Complaint is dismissed qua the other reliefs".

(Extracted from True Translated Copy)

6.      Being aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Appellants / Opposite Parties filed an Appeal No. 1455/2008 before the State Commission. The State Commission in its Order dated 28.04.2022 dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum, with the following findings -

“7). Ld Counsel  for the appellant has argued that case of complainant falls under the category 1. Meaning thereby there was some amount pending against original allottee. But what amount was due has not been disclosed/ mentioned. Complainant has proved it on affidavit that no dues certificate was issued by the authority to the complainant. Issuance of no dues certificate does mean that at the time of conversion, no dues was pending against the original allottee. Hence appellant has taken false and bogus plea that at the time of conversion/ change, any amount was due against d the original allottee. Authority has not taken plea of nonpayment of any conversion fee. Authority itself has executed sale deed in favour of original allottee. Sale deed could be executed only in such situation when original allottee has deposited entire due amount. Hence this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Order

8) Instant appeal is dismissed.”

(Extracted from True Translated Copy)

7.      Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner / OP Authority has filed the instant Revision Petition bearing no. 964 of 2022.

8.      Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire material on record inter-alia Orders of both the fora.

9        It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (which are pari materia to Section 21(b) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)  confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. Thus, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

10.    The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under: -

"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

11. Similarly, in a recent the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, it was held that:-

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally  or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

12.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the State Commission is upheld. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

13.    All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.