IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Commission – Unless it can be shown that the fora bellow transgressed its jurisdiction or that it abstained to exercise the jurisdiction which was vested in it, this Commission is loath to meddle with the findings arrived at by the fora below.
(2) Revisional Jurisdiction – There is no good ground for interference in the impugned Order in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 11.01.2023 in Appeal No. 2553 of 2006 of the State Commission Maharashtra arising out of Order dated 31.10.2006 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 68 of 2005.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including inter alia the Order passed by the State Commission as well as by the District Commission and the memo. of petition.

3. The present petition has been filed against the concurrent findings returned by the two Fora below. The perusal of the record reveals that the contents of the complainant have been referred to in the Order passed by the District Commission and have also been narrated and discussed by the State Commission. In fact, the State Commission has dealt with the facts of the case and the allegations made in the complaint and the defence put forth by the opposite party / petitioner even more elaborately than the District Commission. It shall not serve any additional purpose to once again narrate them afresh. However, in order to bring for the hub of the matter which constitutes the central theme of complainant’s grievance and the deficiency of service or the unfair trade practice committed by the petitioner / opposite party the relevant extract from the Order passed by the State Commission which succinctly captures the facts germane to the controversy may be may be usefully quoted hereinunder which reads as follows:—

(2) The respondent/complainant had filed complaint against the appellant/opponent before the Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bearing No. 68 of 2005. It was alleged that the complainant was in need of accommodation. Therefore, in the year 1998 he approached the opponent for booking of flat in the scheme of the opponent. It was contended that opponent/appellant was constructing the flats in the building known as Vrindavan Avenue’, situated at Shanti Park, Mira Road (East), Thane. Complainant booked the flat for Rs.5,56,990/-, He paid Rs.31,000/- as initial advance amount and balance amount was paid to the opponent during the period August 1994 to September 1996. It was contended that the opponent failed and neglected to handover possession of the flat booked by the complainant. It was alleged that the opponent gave false assurance that they would complete the project and handover the possession. But the possession was not handed over till March 2003. Hence, the complainant decided to cancel the agreement for sale of flat booked with the opponent. It was confended that there was compromise between the opponent and the complainant and it was agreed that the opponent would pay Rs.8,11,000/- to the complainant and accordingly 5 cheques were issued in the name of the complainant. The first two cheques amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- were returned unpaid with remark ‘expected arrangement’ present again. Those were again deposited. But those were dishonoured. Hence, the opponent paid Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.75,000/- by way of pay order. Remaining three cheques were dishonoured. Hence, the complainant did not receive Rs.4,61,000/- from the opponent. Hence, he issued notice. It was contended that on 09/10/2003 the complainant visited the site of the opponent and came to know that in the month of June 2002 the flat of complainant bearing No.604 was sold to the third party namely Ramashray Singh and Sukumari Devi. It was contended that opponent gave false information and misguided the complainant and created third party interest in the flat booked by the complainant. Opponent was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, complaint came to be filed.

4. The grievance which the complainant had in such circumstances as against the petitioner/opposite party was brought before the District Commission in order to seek redressal. The District Commission proceeded in the matter in accordance with law and in the wake of the glaring facts of the case allowed the complaint and