1.      Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7.6.2019 in appeal No.401/2016 filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the District Forum dated 18.2.2016 in complaint no.172 of 2013 of the respondent.

2.      During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the following directions of the State Commission :

 “If the respondent/complainant fails to deposit balance amount alongwith interest within the period of 60 days then the appellant/respondent will return her entire deposited amount alongwith interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum with effect from the date of deposit.”

3.      It is further argued that the petitioner is also not aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the foras below that there was deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner and he is not aggrieved by the directions whereby the for a below have asked the petitioner to handover the possession of the subject flat.  It is argued that in the complaint, there was no prayer for refund of the deposited amount and no such relief was granted by the District Forum in its Order, yet the State Commission had issued above directions and thus had acted with perversity. 

4.      I have heard the arguments of learned counsel and considered all the documents he has referred to, including the prayer in the complaint.  His basic argument is that the above directions of the State Commission are perverse because there was no prayer of refund in the complaint.  The following are the prayers made by the complainant in its complaint No. 172 of 2013 :

“a. The Opposite party may be directed to cancel the cancellation of allotment of said flat/apartment of the complainant.

b. The Opposite Party may be directed to take deposit of amount of the said flat/apartment of the complainant as per agreement.

c. The Opposite Party may be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental trauma due to false statement and unfair trade practice.

c-1. The Opposite Party may be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing harassment due to false statement and deficiency in service.

d. The litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- may be awarded in favour of the complainant.

e. Any other relief may be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.”

4.      From Clause e of the prayer clause, it is apparent that the complainant/respondent had requested the forum to pass any order in his favour which the forum found fit, in the facts and circumstance of the case.  From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the petitioner had advertised a project which was unauthorized at the initial stage and for which the litigation was going on before appropriate forums.  He thereby had adopted unfair trade practice by doing so.  The matter was pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, certain directions were issued by the Allahabad High Court in revision petition No.30044/13 titled New Estate Flat Owners Main Association –vs-  State of U.P.  which were brought to the notice of the District Forum by the complainant by filing a copy of the judgment dated 1.7.2013.  The complainant/respondent was also party in the said petition.  In that petition, the Allahabad High Court had ordered the association members to deposit the amount and directed the petitioner to accept it and also gave the timeline to the complainant to deposit the said amount within two months.  Based on these directions of the High Court of Allahabad, Fora below had set aside the cancellation of the flat of the complainant by the petitioner vide letter dated 8.12.2012.  The State Commission has given the relief in terms of prayer vide Clause e of the complaint.  While order refund is in alternate.

5.      I have found no perversity in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed.