IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Same grounds - From the records it is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in appeal.
(2) Two interpretations of evidence - where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member—This revision petition filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 16.10.2019 of the U.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘State Commission’) dismissing First Appeal No. 704 of 2012 filed against order dated 17.03.2012 in complaint no. 438 of 2009 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Allahabad (in short, ‘District Forum’).

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had been allotted house no MIG 24, Kasari Masari, Phase 2, Allahabad on 21.08.2007. Her contention is that on 15.07.2006 the respondent had brought out an advertisement offering the houses at a cost of Rs 6,00,000/- requiring applicants to register for the same after depositing 10% of the cost. The petitioner had registered on 13.08.2007 by depositing Rs 60,000/-. Accordingly, she contends that she was eligible for the allotment of the said house for Rs 6,00,000/-. However, the respondent has charged her a price of Rs.7,67,000/-. She contends that two other allottees have been allotted houses in MIG – 6 and MIG 4 at a lower rate of Rs.6,39,000/-. She submits that the District Forum and the State Commission have erred in rejecting her complaint and appeal respectively. It is also her contention that while the District Forum allowed the complaints of the other two allottees and directed the respondent to re-fix the price, her complaint was wrongly disallowed. She has therefore filed this petition seeking setting aside of the State Commission’s order.

3. The respondent has contended the Allahabad Development Authority (now Prayagraj Development Authority) had issued two advertisements for the allotment of houses built by it on 15.07.2006 and 21.07.2008. It is admitted that while it is true that the petitioner applied for the MIG house by depositing Rs 60,000/-, the allotment was made to her not as per the advertisement dated 15.07.2006 but rather as per advertisement dated 21.07.2008. As the registration dated 13.08.2007 fell within the purview of the second advertisement for which the rates were different, the house was priced at Rs.7,67,000/-, the allotment being of the financial year 2007-2008 necessitating a different (higher) rate. It is submitted that the petitioner’s contention that there were two other cases which were remanded by the District Forum to the respondent to re-fix the price of the houses allotted is not valid since these also related to their applications under the second advertisement. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged.

4. We have heard the submissions of both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records carefully.

5. The petitioner has argued as per the revision petition and stressed upon the fact that as the deposit of Rs 60,000/- was accepted by the respondent on 13.08.2007 and the scheme required the deposit of 10% of the price of the house, the price of the house should have been reckoned as Rs 6,00,000/- and not Rs.7,67,000/- as done by the respondent. She relies upon the fact that in two other cases pertaining to CC/101/2009 and CC/437/2009, the District Forum ordered that the respondent re-fix the price on this ground. Per contra, the respondent contends that the petition is misplaced since the revisionist has confused the registration as per the second advertisement dated 15.07.2006 with the previous advertisement dated 21.07.2008.

6. From the orders of the fora below it is apparent that the petitioner had filed the complaint before the District Forum and the appeal before the State Forum and urged the very same grounds in support of her case as has been done in the present revision petition. She has averred that she deposited Rs. 60,000/- on 13.08.2007 with the respondent as 10% of the cost of the house MIG 24 in the Kasari Masari, Phase II MIG scheme. It is her case that the advertisement dated 15.07.2006 stated that the cost