Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum.

          Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant purchased QSF units (software units) issued by the respondent.  He submitted an application on 17.2.2000 to the respondent to repurchase the said units.  Petitioner’s case was that he applied for repurchase of only 10482.180 units but the respondent purchased 14149.212 units.  That as per request, the respondent was required to purchase only 10482.180 units on the date he made the application whereas the respondent purchased 3667.032 units at the prevailing price on 3.3.2000, on which date the price of the units had increased.  Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint.  Being aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed.  State Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner had given two contradictory instructions to the respondent, because of which, the respondent repurchased all the units.  In paras-6,7 of its order, the State Commission has recorded the following finding :

“6. As noticed earlier, it is not in dispute that the complainant submitted an application dated 17.2.2000 for the repurchase of the units.  The said application is on record of District Forum and is marked as Exhibit-1.  The complainant stated in the said application that 10482.180 units (all units) were to be repurchased.  There would have been no difficulty if the complainant had, in fact, only 10482.180 units in his account.  But, it is now not in dispute that on that date, i.e., on 17.2.2000, the complainant had additional 3667.032 units besides the aforementioned 10482.180, and thus the balance of units to his credit on the said date was 14149.212 units (10482.180 + 3667.032).  It would thus appear that the complainant in his application Exhibit-1 for repurchase of units, gave two different instructions, one by mentioning that 10482.180 units were to be repurchased while at the same time another instruction was that all units were to be repurchased by the appellants.  The appellants appear to have accepted the instruction of repurchase of all the units.

7. As seen above, the request of the complainant for the repurchase was inconsistent and possibly, the intention of the complainant was that all units in his credit should be repurchased, which was also so mentioned in the application for repurchase.  Therefore, the appellants could not be faulted if they complied with the said request and repurchased all the 14149.212 units at the credit of the complainant and made payment therefor.  It was infact, inconsistent and possibly made by the complainant on the presumption that he had only 10482.180 units at his credit; while infact, he had larger number of units to its credit.  In view of the above, there appears to be no deficiency in service by the appellant in making repurchase of all the 14149.212 units at the credit of complainant, as it did.  The complainant, therefore, was not entitled to file another application subsequently for the repurchase of 3667.032 units, and accordingly was not entitled to recover the difference of the price at the later date, for the remaining 3667.032 units, as has been directed by the District Forum.”

          It is not disputed before us that the petitioner has received the amount of repurchase of all the units, which is as per instructions received contained in the form at Pg.42 of the paperbook.  

          State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order, which does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.  No merits.  Dismissed.