Dinesh Singh, Member—We heard learned counsels for the appellants – complainants and the respondent – opposite party. Authorized representative of the respondent – opposite party was also present. We perused the material on record.

2. The relevant chronology, material to adjudicate this matter, is as below:—

(i) As averred by the complainants, one Kamal Kant Singhal booked a shop with the respondent – opposite party in 2004. In 2006 he transferred his rights in the shop in favour of one Mridulika Gupta and her mother-in-law one Nirmala Mittal. Thereafter the respondent – opposite party made a fresh allotment agreement with Mridulika Gupta and Nirmala Mittal (since deceased). Despite payment of 95% of the consideration amount, possession of the subject shop was not delivered to them. Vide letter dated 15.06.2010 the respondent – opposite party cancelled the allotment of the shop.

(ii) A c.c. no. 280 of 2010 was filed by Mridulika Gupta before the State Commission.

(iii) The State Commission vide its Order dated 07.02.2013 dismissed the complaint on maintainability:

6. Out of the objections, raised on which is about the maintainability of the complaint needs to be decided first.