S.K. Naik, Member—Aggrieved against the order dated 23rd of April, 2009 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short the State Commission), this revision petition has been filed by Lucknow Development Authority. Vide the order impugned, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-opposite party-Authority both on the ground of limitation as well as on merit, giving a direction to the petitioner/opposite party to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent-complainant of the house allotted to him for a price of Rs.5,96,000/- after adjustment of Rs.40,000/- deposited by him and to pay cost of Rs.5000/-.

2. According to the respondent-complainant, he applied for the allotment of a semi built house on Hire Purchase basis in Anucumpa Lake View Scheme floated by the petitioner-Authority. He registered himself by depositing the prescribed registration amount of Rs.20,000/- on the 10th of May, 1995. He further deposited another sum of Rs.20,000/- on the 30th of April, 1996, which he claims to be the allotment money. While he claims that despite the deposit of the allotment money he was not given the possession of any semi built house and he continued to represent the petitioner-Authority repeatedly for the same, finally he was allotted semi built house no. 3/22 in Vaastu Khand, Gomti Nagar vide Authority’s letter dated 15th of March, 2004. This was done when his complaint was pending before the District Forum. The petitioner-Authority, however, demanded a sum of Rs.7,38,650/- towards the cost of the semi built house as against the cost of Rs.4,60,000/- which was not justified. According to him, the cost of the house was fixed at Rs.4,60,000/- and was not amenable to any enhancement as per their own brochure. The petitioner-Authority, therefore, could not ask for any interest or enhanced price. The District Forum had accepted his complaint and directed the petitioner-Authority to hand over possession of house no. 3/22 in Vaastu Khand at the old rate without charging any interest within a month. It further directed the petitioner-Authority to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards the cost of the case. Since the counsel for the petitioner-Authority after initial appearance failed to pursue the matter before the District Forum, they were proceeded ex-parte at the time of passing of final order.

3. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, the matter was taken up by the petitioner-Authority in appeal before the State Commission, who vide the order impugned has dismissed the appeal both on account of delay in filing the appeal as also on merit and has directed the petitioner-Authority to execute the sale deed of the house allotted to the respondent-complainant for a price of Rs.5,96,900/- subject to adjustment of Rs.40,000/- deposited by the complainant. This price of Rs.5,96,900/- as stated in the order of the State Commission has been communicated to the complainant by the petitioner-Authority vide their letter dated 14th of August, 2008 in modification of the price of Rs.4,60,000/- stated in the brochure. It is this order of the State Commission that is the matter for adjudication in this revision petition.

4. We have heard Shri Mohd. Moonis Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioner-Authority, and Shri B.S. Sharma appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Commission in the disposal of this case.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae has pleaded for the dismissal of the revision petition on the ground that it was a case of concurrent finding of facts and of law. According to him, no interference is called for at the stage of revision since the State Commission has not committed any illegality by dismissing the petitioner’s appeal as time barred as also on merit. Further, the petitioner-Authority though represented through their counsel had not pursued their case before the District Forum resulting in an ex-parte order having been passed agai