ORDER (ORAL) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Rajasthan Housing Board, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 18.08.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.3, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.1317 of 2012. By the impugned order, while affirming the finding returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur III (for short “the District -2- Forum”) in its order dated 22.08.2012, in Compliant No.165 of 2012, relating to the deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner herein in their dealings with the Complainant in connection with the allotment of a house for the ‘Economically Weaker Section’, which was later on converted into ‘General Section’, the State Commission has enhanced the compensation of ₹40,000/- awarded by the District Forum in favour of the Complainant for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him, to ₹1,00,000. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that being dissatisfied with the afore-said order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner as well as the Complainant had preferred Appeals to the State Commission. The Appeal (No.1438 of 2012) preferred by the Petitioner, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 22.08.2012 on merits, was dismissed by the State Commission. It is stated by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the said order has since been accepted by the Petitioner. In view of the statement, the finding relating to deficiency in service, against the Petitioner attains finality. In that view of the matter, the question surviving for consideration in this Revision Petition is whether in the Appeal preferred by the Complainant, the State Commission was justified in enhancing the compensation in favour of the Complaint from ₹40,000/- to ₹1,00,000/-. -3- Regard being had to the circumstances, highlighted in the orders passed by the Fora below, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in a limited Revisional Jurisdiction vested in this Commission, more so when the total amount involved in the case is a paltry sum of ₹60,000/-. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. |
