ORAL Along with this Appeal, an application for condonation of delay has been filed. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents on caveat does not object to the same. In view of this and for the reasons disclosed in the application, the delay is condoned. Arguments heard on Revision Petition. 1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that she challenges the impugned order on three counts: firstly, the Forum -2- below have not dealt with the objection of the Petitioner that the Complaint was barred by limitation since it was filed beyond the period of limitation of two years when the demand letter was duly served upon the allottee, secondly, that the finding of the lower Forum that the letter of demand was not served upon the allottee is not correct since it is based on the fact that the Petitioner could not produce the documents showing the due service of demand letter upon the allottee and thirdly, that the grant of compensation of ₹2 Lakhs is towards higher side because it is the allottee who had defaulted in making the payments. On these contentions, it is argued that the impugned order be set aside. 2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the findings of the Forum below are based on the documents and evidence produced by both the parties and this Commission has no jurisdiction to re-assess and re-appreciate the findings and then to reach to a different conclusion on facts than what has been arrived at by the Forum below. It is submitted that there is a concurrent finding of the fact that the demand letter was never served upon the Respondent and secondly, the cancellation of the allotment was found to be bad in law. It is further submitted that the Respondent who is in litigation with the Petitioner since 2005 -3- and the booking was made in 1989, and that in view of these facts, the awarded compensation cannot be said to be on higher side. 3. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 4. The brief facts of the case are that late Sh. Baru Ram had applied for the allotment of LIG flat in NPRS Scheme 1979 and deposited the registration amount of ₹1500/-. He was assigned a priority number against his registration and a plot no.158, Pocket 13, Phase-3, Sector 21, Rohini was allotted to him on cash down basis and a letter which was demand – cum – allotment letter was sent to him in block dates 23.07.1998 - 29.07.1998 at his available address in the registration application with an advice to deposit the requisite amount. The said envelope however, was not delivered to the Respondent and it was received back with the postal remarks ‘the person was not available at the address”. Thereafter, a notice dated 26.02.1999 was sent by DDA to him asking to make the payment or his allotment would be cancelled on 09.07.1998. This letter was also not received by the allottee. As the years passed by and no information was received by the allottee from DDA, they approach the DDA and learnt that their allotment had been cancelled. Thereafter, the Complaint was filed. After the -4- notice was served upon the DDA, DDA submitted its written version taking objection that the Complaint was bared by limitation and the allottee was a defaulter. 5. Parties led their evidences before the District Forum and after hearing the parties, the District Forum reached to the conclusion that the allotment – cum – demand letter and the cancellation notice were never served upon the allottee and therefore, the alottee could not be considered as a defaulter and that the act of cancellation by the DDA was wrong and amounted to deficiency in service. The District Forum issued the following directions: 11. “xxxxxxxxx Therefore, we held OP guilty of deficiency of service on its part and direct OP to return the amount of registration fee, pay a compensation of Rs.Two lakhs (Rs.2,00,000/-) to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment etc. So far as, the allotment of flat is concerned the scheme was already closed by the OP. This complaint was filed by Baru Ram who had died long back and his Nine LRs were brought on record in his place. Therefore, granting of relief of allotment of flat would not serve any purpose for such big family. Hence, compensation is the only remedy to compensate the complainant for harassment. This order shall be complied by the OP within one month of its receipt.” 6. This order was impugned by the Petitioner before the State Commission and similar pleas were taken. Vide the impugned order, the State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum regarding non-service of the demand – cum – -5- allotment letter and rejected all the contentions of the Petitioner DDA including the argument that the complaint was barred by limitation. 7. It is apparent that there is a concurrent finding of fact of Forum below based on the evidences before them that the demand – cum – allotment letter and the notices were never served upon the allottee and thus the allottee had no knowledge of the allotment and the demand by the DDA. The cause of action, therefore, could not be said to have started from the date of issuance of allotment – cum – demand letter or the date of cancellation. It has to start from the date when the allottee learnt of the cancellation of the allotment. From that point of view, the complaint was not barred by limitation. 8. It is also apparent that the Forum below have not directed the Petitioner DDA to allot a plot to late Sh. Baru Ram whose LRs have subsequently contested the case on his behalf but it awarded only the compensation. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has failed to point out that in these circumstances, the amount awarded towards compensation of ₹2 Lakhs is excessive. 9. Under Section 21(b) of the Act, this Commission has a limited jurisdiction. It is stopped from re-appreciating and re- -6- assessing the evidences and reach to its own conclusion on facts. It can only ascertain if any miscarriage of justice has occurred or whether the jurisdiction has been wrongly exercised by the Fora below. Hon’ble Supreme Court in In “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269” has held as under: “23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora”. 10. Petitioner has failed to point out any miscarriage of justice or that Fora below have wrongly exercised their jurisdiction. The Revision Petition has no merit and is dismissed along with all the pending applications. | 
