IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no illegality in the order passed by the District Forum and the State Commission , the same cannot be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in F.A. No. 293/2011 dated 20.02.2018.

2. According to the Petitioner, he was given possession of Flat No. B-63 in the Respondent Society on 08.12.2002 after clearing all dues. As per the demand of the Managing Committee of the Respondent Society, Petitioner paid in advance Rs. 7,500/- towards maintenance and Rs. 5,485/- towards ground rent. Managing Committee of the Respondent Society charged Rs. 1,70,000/- from the Complainant, towards land cost instead of Rs. 1,54,370/- and Rs. 8500/- towards iron grills instead of Rs. 5,000/- . They had also charged more towards maintenance, water and electricity charges, though they were to maintain the building and essential services of the said Society on no profit and no loss basis. The Petitioner made oral as well as written requests on several occasions, but no reply or action was taken by the Respondent Society. The Respondent is thus guilty of unfair trade practice amounting to deficiency of service. Inspite of specific requests and orders of Hon’ble CIC, no information was supplied to him and water and electricity supply of the Flat of the Petitioner was cut on 29.07.2008, causing him irreparable physical, mental and financial loss of about 15 Lakhs. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Petitioner before the District Forum claiming compensation or damages and to restore electricity and water supply in Flat No. B-63 of the Respondent Society.

3. Respondent has filed his written statement in the District Forum, stating that the Petitioner has been allotted Flat No. B-63 and was put in possession of the same on 08.12.2002. He paid maintenance and ground rent only once at the time of taking possession, let alone charging any excess amount from him. Also, all essential services were being maintained on no profit no loss basis. There is no deficiency in service on their part. All amounts paid had gone into the account of the society and not into the account of any member of the Managing Committee. The same charges are levied to all members and the Petitioner is not being singled out. Members of Co-operative Society are not consumers. The Managing Committee serves on honorarium basis without any monetary benefit. All the allegations are false and vexatious. It was further contended that Consumer Court has no jurisdiction to decide the said Complaint and the same was barred under Section 70 and 132 of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act 2003. Hence, Complaint was not at all maintainable as the Complainant was not a consumer within the definition of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further stated that after handing over possession, repair of the individual Flat was not the responsibility of the society or the Managing Committee and no water or electricity supply was cut on 29.07.2008.

4. The District Forum vide order dated 07.06.2011, dismissed the Complaint on the ground that only oral allegations were made by the Petitioner and nothing was proved by way of evidence. The Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission against the orders passed by the District Forum. State Commission, vide order dated 20.02.2018, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum.Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition.

5. Heard the Petitioner in person. He contended that the State Commission has not considered the documents placed on record. He has also placed a bunch of citations for consideration. No evidence was produced that the Petitioner has paid any excess amount towards maintenance charges. He has also not sought recovery of any excess amount paid.

6. We have gone through the orders passed by the State Commission as well as