Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

            It is quite clear that the petitioner herein obtained possession of a two-room apartment sometime in 2000 from the respondent – builder and was required to carry out some additional/ rectification works thereafter. It is the admitted position that a proper sale-deed was executed by the respondent – builder in favour of the petitioner in August 2005.  Thereafter, the petitioner sold the flat in question to another person sometime in early 2006.

            However, the complaint before the District Forum was filed by the petitioner/ complainant in January 2007. Thus at the time of the petitioner/ complainant filing of the complaint under the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, she was not the owner of the flat in question and, therefore, any grievance that the petitioner might have had in respect of the payment allegedly made in excess for acquiring this property would not fall within the purview of a Consumer Forum under the said Act.

            The State Commission has appreciated the facts of the matter in detail and recorded a well-reasoned order.  We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which calls for any interference by this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.