1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Forum (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (for short, the State Commission), the Petitioner/ Opposite Party – Bihar State Housing Board filed Revision Petition No. 4484 of 2014 under Section  21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against Vijay Kumar Sinha (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent/ Complainant). The Complaint filed by the Complainant being Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 2001 before the District Forum was partly allowed.  The relevant portion of the Order dated 21.02.2004 is reproduced as under:-

“In view of the aforesaid discussions we find and hold that the complainant is liable to make payment of the escalated price of the flat so determined as on 15.4.89 over and above tentative price determined as per agreement dated 15.12.88. the complainant has filed to substantiate the claim of incurring expenditure over repair etc. of the flat after taking possession. Therefore, the claim on this score is negatived. Accordingly we direct the opposite parties (Board) to communicate the re-determined valuation of the flat as on 15.4.89 with due communication to the complainant within three months of passing of the order, on payment of balance amount of enhanced re-determined valuation the compliant shall make payment of the enhanced price, if any, within two months of the communication of the demand notice. The opposite parties (Board) such payment or otherwise would execute the sale deed in respect of the flat within three months of the deposits of the enhanced price, if any, in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties (Board) could no deliver possession of the flat even after three years of depositing the entire cost, and put forth the demand of escalated price on capitalised valuation in the year 1999. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (Board). So, we also direct the opposite parties (Board) make payment of Rs. 3.000/- (Three thousand) on account of litigation cost etc.”

2. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the Order of the District Forum was dismissed by the State Commission vide Order dated 21.02.2014.
3. As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same. 
4. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel of the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner allotted a LIG Flat to the Respondent on 29.10.1983. The Agreement for this Flat was executed on 5.12.1988.  On payment of the remaining balance amount on 15.04.1989, possession of the Flat was given 02.02.1991. In the year 1999, a notice was sent for payment of final cost which came out to be Rs.74,212/- or out of which the Complainant had already paid Rs.43,0000/-, which was the original consideration.
6. The present Revision Petition was proceeded ex-parte against Respondent (s) vide Order dated 01.02.2024.
7. Have gone through the Orders of the State Commission and District Forum and the grounds raised in the present Petition.  The Petitioner has reiterated contentions already presented before the State Commission and the District Forum, without introducing any new substantial arguments justifying interference with the well-reasoned Orders of the State Commission and District Forum.  I do not see any reason for fixing the price of the Unit as on 1999, when the Agreement was executed in 1988 and possession handed over in 1991.  There is no basis for the argument of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the final cost was being determined in the meantime.  This shows the deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner to work and the final cost after such a delay and saddle the allottee with interest.  I concur with the findings of both the District Forum and the State Commission.
8. It is a well-established principle that this Commission has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of the District Forum and State Commission except for any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. I would like to cite the following Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard:

1. Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31 decided on 08.09.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“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. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. Narendran Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 decided on 07.03.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it”

3. Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011, wherein it was held as under:

“23. 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 exercise 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 than 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 court 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 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 findings of two fora.” 

4. Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. ( 2016 8 SCC 286) decided on 02.08.2016, wherein it was held as under:

 “23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has 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 reason” 

5. Sunil Kumar Maity v. SBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 decided on 21.01.2022 , wherein it was held 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. .....”

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is dismissed.