Complainant/respondent applied for MIG house under instant allotment scheme and paid the entire amount of Rs.3,60,000/- in the year 1996.  Inspite of paying the entire amount of consideration, the petitioner did not deliver the possession of the house and the rebate of 1% was also not granted to him.  Thus being aggrieved, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the

-2-

petitioner to hand over the possession of the house along with interest on the deposited amount from 09.8.1996 as well as the rebate of 1%,  i.e., Rs.3,600/-.  Compensation of Rs.2 Lacs for mental torture was also prayed for.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to give possession of a fully developed house to the respondent within two months from the date of decision; interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.9.1996 till the date of possession; rebate of 1% i.e. Rs.3,600/- and compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards mental torture.  It was also held that in case the order is not complied within the stipulated time, the petitioner shall become liable to pay interest @ 21% on the awarded amount till realization.

          The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum was dismissed by the State Commission.

          Petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision petition before this Commission.  This Commission modified the order of the District Forum and the State Commission to the extent that the respondent will not be entitled to claim the rebate of 1%, i.e. Rs.3,600/-.  The last para of the order providing that in the event of non-compliance, the

-3-

rate of interest shall be 21% was deleted.  Rest of the order was maintained. 

Petitioner, thereafter, filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed.

          Since the order passed by the District Forum, which was upheld upto the Supreme Court of India, was not complied with, the respondent filed the execution application before the District Forum, which was allowed.  Petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision petition before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 

Before the State Commission, the petitioner asked for an adjournment, which was opposed by the respondent.  The adjournment was declined.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioner to hand over the possession of flat no.4/168, Indrapuram complete in all respects within 15 days, failing which the District Forum was directed to pass an appropriate order under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

-4-

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission should have granted adjournment to the petitioner.  No reasons are forthcoming as to why an adjournment was necessary.

We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed in the revision petition.  Respondent inspite of having succeeded all through has not been able to get possession of the house in the last 14/15 years.  Undue harassment and great injustice has been caused to the respondent.  No ground had been made out for adjournment of the case before the State Commission.  No merits.  Dismissed.