JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision is directed against the impugned order of the State Commission dated 11.10.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum Gurgaon dated 24.03.2011 which reads as under: “Hence, the complainant is entitled to refund of his amount of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited with the opposite party on 16.01.2007 vide receipt dated 19.01.2007 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. The complainant is also entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for his harassment and mental agony caused by the opposite party. He is also entitled to litigation charges of Rs.5000/- from the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to comply the order within 30 days”. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision are that the respondent / complainant filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner / opposite party alleging that lured by the advertisement / brochures of the petitioner company, the complainant booked a flat in the proposed project of the petitioner, namely, M2K Country Heights Dharuheda on payment of Rs.3,00,000/-. Pursuant to the booking, the complainant was allotted apartment no. E-1108, Tower No.E, 11th Floor measuring 1425 sq. ft @ 1495 per sq. ft. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant visited the office of the petitioner / opposite party on several occasions to find out about the location and progress of the project but no information was given to him. The complainant even sent written reminders to the opposite party to find out about the progress of the project but to no avail. It was also alleged that opposite party had taken a booking amount of Rs.3,00,000/ without having any CLU or license to construct. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the complaint was filed. The petitioner / opposite party contested the complaint claiming it to be false and frivolous. It was further admitted that the complainant vide his application dated 16.01.2007 booked an apartment in the proposed housing project “M2K Country Heights” at Dharuheda, Haryana. The complainant was informed about the specifications including tentative super area, basic sale price as also the tentative date of delivery of possession vide letter dated 17.05.2007 and the allotment letter was issued in favour to the respondent complainant on 14.08.2007. It was also pleaded that the construction of the residential complex commenced on 21.09.2007 after obtaining requisite approvals and permissions from the competent authority. According to the petitioner, the possession of the apartment is to be delivered within the parameters of the terms and conditions of the agreement and that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and on the contrary, complainant has defaulted in making payment of instalment as per the agreed payment schedule, therefore, his allotment / booking is liable to be cancelled. 3. The District Forum Gurgaon on consideration of the evidence allowed the complaint in above noted terms. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission after hearing the parties returned the concurrent finding of fact and dismissed the appeal with following observations: “After hearing the counsel for parties and going through facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that complainant vide his application dated 16.01.2007 booked an apartment with OP in their project M2K Country Heights at Dharuheda, Haryana on payment of Rs.3,00,000/-. The complainant was not satisfied with their project as he could not find its whereabouts at the spot. Moreover, the OPs alleged that they started constructions from the competent authority but they failed to disclose it and show it to the complainant. Hence, the OPs could not assure the complainant regarding status of their project by disclosing the factual position to complainant. Thus, District Consumer Forum after considering each and every aspect of the case rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. No ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out”. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders of the fora below claiming that they have committed a grave error in failing to appreciate that the respondent complainant is not a consumer as he had booked a flat with the petitioner with a view to earn speculative profits. We do not find any merit in this contention for the reason that aforesaid plea was not taken in the written statement and otherwise also, counsel for the petitioner has failed to show us any evidence to indicate that the respondent complainant has booked the flat for commercial purpose i.e. earning speculative profits. 6. Secondly, it is contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner / opposite party. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that fora below have failed to appreciate that the petitioner had commenced construction after obtaining all necessary sanctions from the concerned authorities in the year 2007 itself and the complainant / respondent is himself guilty of failing to pay the instalments as per the agreement despite of several demand notices sent by the petitioner. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the copies of the communication purported to have been sent to the respondent for execution of Apartment Buyer Agreement respectively dated 01.02.2008, 04.04.2008, 21.04.2008, 12.05.2008 & 05.06.2008. Counsel has also drawn our attention to the copies of the Allotment Advise-cum-Demand Note dated 14.08.2007 as also the reminders calling upon the respondent to pay the outstanding dues respectively dated 01.05.2008, 15.05.2008, 02.06.2008, 16.06.2008, 01.07.2008, 03.07.2008, 28.07.2008 & 28.08.2008. On the basis of the above letters, it is urged that respondent himself is a defaulter. Therefore, the impugned orders holding the petitioner to be deficient in service are not sustainable. 7. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to have a look on the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission. The revisional jurisdiction of National Commission flows from section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act and such powers can be exercised by the National Commission to revise the order of the State Commission if the State Commission – (i) has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or, (ii) has failed to exercised the jurisdiction vested in it; or, (iii) has acted in exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the State Commission has either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Basic plea of the petitioner is that the impugned order of the State Commission is based on incorrect appreciation of facts. On perusal of the record, we find that both the foras below have arrived at a concurrent finding by passing the reasoned order. Therefore, we do find no reason to interfere in the aforesaid finding of fact. 8. On perusal of the copy of the complaint annexed to the revision petition, it is clear that main grievance of the complainant / respondent is that after booking a plot and paying Rs.3,00,000/-, complainant visited the office of the petitioner on several occasions to find out about the particulars and status of the proposed project but no information was given. It is also the case of the complainant that he asked the respondent to convey him the date by which the possession would be delivered but no response was received from the petitioner. In response to this allegation, petitioner has taken a plea in his written statement filed before the District Forum that the tentative date of completion of the project was intimated to the respondent in the application form sent alongwith the letter dated 14.08.2007. We have perused the copy of the application form sent alongwith the aforesaid letter wherein in the clause 41, the tentative date of completion of construction of apartment is given as 36 months from the date of the commencement of construction. As per the written statement of OP filed in the District Forum, the construction process started on 21.07.2007. Therefore, as per the agreement construction should have been completed by the year 2010. The impugned order was passed on 11.10.2012. Admittedly till then, the construction of the apartment was not complete, although five years period from the date of commencement of construction had elapsed. This by itself amounts to the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner builder. Therefore, also the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be faulted. Otherwise also, both the District Forum as well as the State Commission have returned a concurrent finding of fact after due analysis of the evidence. As such we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 21 (b) of the Act. 9. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. | 
