N Surendra Rai vs Aparna Construction Estates Pvt Ltd

REVISION petition no. 4071 of 2012 is filed against the order dated 01.08.2012 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (''the State Commission'') in appeal no. 586 of 2010.

THE facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that respondent/ opposite party are in building construction field and they have undertaken the project by name "Aparna Cyber Commune" and the said project has ten blocks consisting of 660 apartments and closely located to the IT hubs of Gachibowli and Manikonda. The project was to be completed within 18 months of obtaining the approval from Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (in short "GHMC") further that the approval would be obtained within one month and or six months of finalization of booking and that the land was in the designated residential zone.

THE petitioner paid Rs.2.00 lakh as advance/ initial payment to the respondent on 05.03.2008 and booked a flat in their project ''Aparna Cyber Commune" valued at a cost of Rs.38,68,200/ - and was given a receipt for the said advance. Respondent had categorically promised on receipt of advance of Rs.2.00 lakh on 05.03.2008 that the GHMC approval would be obtained within a month and the project will be completed within 18 months and the flat would be delivered for possession to the petitioner with all the amenities and specifications as promised in the brochure. Yet, even though 13 months have passed after the payment of advance of Rs.2.00 lakh to the respondent, the respondent had not obtained the GHMC''s approval thereby the respondent had committed default and willful misconduct and it appeared there was no prospect of his obtaining the approval from GHMC. Without the legal approval of GHMC there was no question of legal authorized construction by the respondent. There was almost no possibility of their completing the construction as envisaged in the contract nor any possibility of delivery within the stipulated time period.

THE respondent has, hence, committed fault of deficiency in service as per the provisions of the Act of 1986 in not obtaining the GHMC approval for construction of the project building within the time promised and there was no prospect of construction being completed with the due approval from GHMC.

THEREFORE , the petitioner prayed before the District Forum to cancel the contract and grant/ award the following: Refund of advance amount of Rs.2.00 lakh paid to the respondent on 05.03.2008 for booking the flat; Pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment on 05.03.2008 till the date of award and future interest at the same rate till the date of realization; Award compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh as envisaged under section 14 (1) (d) of the Act; Award punitive damages to the tune of Rs.5.0 lakh as envisaged in the proviso to section 14 (1) (d) of the Amendment Act, 2002; Award adequate cost of Rs.10,000/ - as provided for in section 14 (1) (i) of the Act.

IN their counter filed by the respondent/ opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, Hyderabad (''the District Forum'') the respondent stated that the complaint was absolutely false and hence, denied. The petitioner was put to strict proof of all those allegations, except those which are specifically admitted hereunder. The petitioner had suppressed the material facts and approached the District Forum without bonafides. There was no direct relationship between the respondent and the petitioner and therefore, there was no relationship of consumer and hence, the complaint was not maintainable.

THE respondent further stated that when the project was initially announced, M/s Synergy Welfare Association, a society registered with Registration no. 1865 of 2007, approached the respondent stating that it was formed with the objective of purchasing the land/ flats for its members. They held several rounds of discussions with the marketing team of the respondent on specifications and other details, stating that they would make a bulk booking of flats for its members and negotiated the price. At that time, the respondent was proposing to take up the project in an area of Rs.Ac8.05 Gnts with 660 apartments. The respondent had agreed to give concessional price at the rate of Rs.3070/ - per square feet to the society, in view the bulk booking, which would save marketing costs, when the prevailing market rate was between Rs.3700/ - and Rs.4200/ - per square feet in that locality involving superior standards of construction. The said rate covered not only the amenities, but also car parking area, contrary to the then prevailing marketing practice. Thus, the society secured handsome concession in price on the promise of wholesale booking. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between the Society and the respondent on 14.02.2008.

AS per the terms of the said MOU, the extent of the land considered for the project was Ac 8.05 Gnts, but the respondent was entitled to add and merge further land owned by it, to form part of the project, including the access and there was no room for customization in such a large project and it was agreed that the Society and its members would extend maximum cooperation to the respondent on completion of the project. Initially / booking advance was 5% or Rs.2.00 lakh which ever was higher. 5% of the cost of the apartment was to be paid on obtaining GHMC approval, if eligible for 90% loan or otherwise, other than the loan component was to be paid and the balance amount was to be paid as per the loan installments. The offer made by the respondent was valid only till 15.03.2008 and the members of the Society had to pay the booking advance on or before 15.03.2008 and enter into an agreement and the members had to pay the balance amount as per the schedule. Clause 12 (1) and (2) of the MOU which were relevant for the present purpose reads as follows: "12.1 - One lakh of initial booking advance shall be forfeited in case the applicant intends to cancel/ withdraw from the booking within one month from the date of acceptance of application.

12.2 - In case of cancellation midway through the construction process, 10% of the total cost of the apartment shall be forfeited towards cancellation charges".

IN pursuance to the said MOU, the society could arrange only 321 bookings though they had claimed membership strength of 600 and above. On account of the agreement between the Society and the respondent, the respondent had added another extent of Ac 1.14 Gnts to its project and submitted an application to the GHMC for permission on 26.04.2008. The clearances from various other authorities were applied and obtained as under: (i) HMWS and SB dated 11.12.2008, File no. 2008 12 -609 (ii) Director Fire and Emergency Services Department dated 25.08.2008 vide Re. no. 4794/E4/2008, 4795/E4/2008, 4796/E4/2008, 4797/E4/2008, 4798/E4/2008, 4799/E4/2008, 4800/E4/2008, 4801/E4/2008, 4802/E4/2008 and 4803/E4/2008 (iii) Airports Authority of India, Hyderabad Lt No. AAI/ HY/ ATS 59/ NOC 2/2008/935 -37 dated 06.08.208 and Letter no. AAI/HY/ATS -59/NOC -2/2008/ 11830 -32 dated 07.10.2008 and land use certificates letter no. 11021 -LU/P5/HUDA/2008 dated 14.08.2008 and letter no. 11022 -LU/P5/PUDA/2008 dated 14.08.2008.

THE project was conceived originally on the basis of the existing building rules, including G O Ms no. 86 dated 03.03.2006. Subsequently, the Government made drastic changes governing high rise buildings by issuing GO Ms no. 302 dated 15.02.2008, GO Ms no. 246, MA dated 19.03.2008 and GO Ms No. 288 dated 03.04.2008 on account of which the respondent was required to make repeated modifications in the plans and had finally filed for approval of the GHMC on 26.04.2008. However, there were many representations from several builders and organizations, including the President of Builder Forum on 07.06.2008 and President, APREDA dated 07.06.2008 against the GO Ms no. 288 dated 03.04.2008 and the said GO was also challenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 14897 of 2008. The main grievance against the said G O was that it required 2.5% of the land out of 10% of the land set apart for recreation and community purpose, must be utilized for social infrastructure, namely, economically weaker section housing and another 5% for lower income group housing, which cuts into the amenities conceived for the project. After the prolonged negotiations, the Government issued, GO Ms. No. 526 dated 31.07.2008 making further amendments, which were further clarified by the Government in its letter bearing no. 15230/11/2008 dated 06.10.2008.

ON account of the above amendments under GO Ms. No. 288, etc., and the litigation as above, there was lack of clarity and confusion about the requirements of the Building Rules amongst the officials. The applications made for high rise buildings which were affected by the said GO were not even processed till 06.10.2008. The relaxation given by the Government under GO Ms. No. 526 and the letter dated 06.10.2008, the respondent had filed the revised plans as per the amended rules on 15.10.2008 with a processing fee of Rs.35,000/ - in addition to the processing fee of Rs.19,152/ - already paid at the time of filing the original plans, which was acknowledged by the letter dated 15.10.2008 issued by the GHMC.

AFTER processing the revised plans, the GHMC has sent a letter bearing no. 1152/CSC/TP11/08/3585 dated 11.12.2008 seeking certain clarifications, to which the respondent has submitted a prompt reply on 12.12.2008 itself. The GHMC sanctioned the plans and the same was intimated vide letter dated 12.01.2009.

IN the meanwhile, recession in the software industry in particular and the economy in general had set in and the Society started negotiating with the respondent to facilitate cancellation on easier terms than what was stipulated in the MOU and also for further concession of price. The society had brought to the notice of the respondent that a number of its members had either lost their jobs or suffered wage cuts and therefore, they were not in a position to pay the amount as originally agreed to. There were series of meetings between the office bearers of the Society and the respondent and finally an open house meeting was convened on 21.02.2009 at the site at the cost of respondent in which members of the Society participated. After a prolonged discussion in the open house meeting, the society and its members requested the respondent that instead of 10% of the total cost of the flat as agreed upon, the respondent should forfeit only Rs.1.00 lakh uniformly in case of all cancellations made or opted on or before 23.02.2009 and the price be further reduced from Rs.3070 to Rs.2850/ - per square foot. After taking into account the loss suffered by the respondent in not booking the flats as per the original commitment and also the adverse financial conditions faced by the members of the society, it was agreed that the respondent shall permit cancellation or forfeiture of only Rs.1 lakh instead of 10% of the total cost of the flat as originally agreed upon, provided the cancellation was opted on or before 23.02.2009. The respondent agreed to process the applications made by 31.03.2009. The price was reduced to Rs.2850/ - per square feet and further to Rs.2620/ - thereafter. The minutes of the meeting were circulated by the Society to its members as well as to the respondent through e -mail.

THE petitioner had booked the flat bearing no. 504, ad -measuring 1260 square feet on 5th floor of Block A for a total consideration of Rs.38,68,200/ - through the Society, in whose favour, he executed an authorization letter and signed the booking form dated 05.03.2008. The booking form signed and submitted by the petitioner also contained the same terms and conditions and the said condition nos. (e) and (f) read as follows: (e) Rs.1.00 lakh of the initial booking advance shall be forfeited in case of cancellation/ withdrawal from booking within one month from the date of acceptance of the application. In case of cancellation midway through the construction, 10% shall be forfeited as cancellation charges (including amenities).

WHILE the Society was renegotiating the terms as stated above, the petitioner made an enquiry with the marketing staff of the respondent on 22.01.2009 as to how to exit. Subsequently, the petitioner participated in the open house meeting organized by the respondent at the site on 21.02.2009 along with other members of the Society. The petitioner sent an e -mail to the respondent on 24.02.2009 confirming his option of cancellation. Accordingly, request of the petitioner for cancellation was processed and the petitioner was informed through an e -mail on 01.04.2009 that his cheque for the balance amount, after deducting the amount liable to be forfeited towards damages as agreed upon, was ready and the petitioner was requested to collect the same from the Corporate Office by bringing the Original receipt and in case, it was not possible for the petitioner to visit the office, petitioner could send the original receipt by post, giving the mailing address, so as to enable the respondent to send the cheque by registered post. However, the petitioner chose not to surrender the original receipt and receive the cheque, for the reasons best known to him.

THE respondent started making unpleasant calls, threatening the marketing staff of the respondent. The marketing staff maintained utmost restraint, keeping in view the traditions of the respondent. Finally, the petitioner sent an e -mail message dated 15.04.2009 purportedly in the name of his father Shri N Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Advocate falsely alleging that the opposite party has committed willful default in not obtaining the approval within the stipulated period for the project and failed thereby in lawfully constructing and delivering the flat and committed breach and hence, the contract stood cancelled; suppressing his own previous e -mails. Thus, his conduct explicitly and transparently speaks about the frivolous, vexatious and dishonest nature of the claim of the petitioner. The respondent sent a reply dated 28.04.2009 denying the false allegations and requesting the petitioner to receive the cheque as per the original understanding. The petitioner instead of receiving the cheque by surrendering the original receipt filed the complaint before the District Forum with false and reckless allegations. The above complaint was liable to be dismissed in limini as being frivolous and vexatious.

IN pursuance to the revised terms of price re -negotiated by the Society and its members including the petitioner in the open house meeting held on 21.02.2009, 149 members of the society have taken refund of the amounts paid by them by foregoing Rs.1.00 lakh towards liquidated damages/ compensation.

APART from processing fee, the respondent had to pay Rs.6,46,56,150/ - towards permit fees alone to the GHMC, Rs.30,00,000/ - to HMWS&SB towards water and Sewerage charges in addition to the expenditure of Rs.25 crores already spent towards construction made so far and other establishment costs. So far, the respondent has invested a sum of Rs.55.92 crores as on 27.07.2009 and further, they were spending Rs.25 lakhs to Rs. 30 lakh for week towards the construction.

HENCE , the complaint was frivolous, vexatious and was not maintainable. There was no relationship of consumer as the petitioner was not a party to the transaction directly and the transaction was routed through and governed by the agreement reached between the Society and the respondent. The booking made by the petitioner forms part of the transaction finalized with the society and it cannot be separated or isolated from the transaction with the society. The transaction was negotiated and re -negotiated as a single and indivisible one. A member of the society can have only right against the Society and cannot have any right in respect of the transaction made by the Society qua third party like the respondent. In fact, the petitioner has himself opted for cancellation as per the terms of understanding in the open house meeting, which he confirmed by society and petitioner through e -mail.

THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, Hyderabad vide its order dated 11.03.2010 partly allowed the complaint and observed as under: "As rightly contended on behalf of the opposite party, the complainant is guilty of suppression of important facts. He has nowhere pleaded that the society in which he was a member, negotiated with the opposite party for fixing the price or reducing it. He even suppressed the fact that he is the member of the society called M/s Synergy Welfare Association. The MOU entered between the opposite party and the said society on 14.02.2008 for purchase of flats for its members in the self/same venture. The price was also negotiated and agreed. The said Synergy Society certified that the complainant is a bonafide member of the said association and was authorized to book a flat pursuant to the MOU entered on 14.02.2008. Accordingly, the complainant submitted booking application to opposite party on 05.03.2008 which was received by opposite party on 13.03.2008. As per the MOU the complainant deposited Rs.2,00,000/ - as advance. Later the complainant expressed his willingness to cancel the booking. Clauses 12.1 and 12.2 of the MOU provide for cancellation charges of Rs.1,00,000/ - within one month from the date of acceptance of the application and 10% of the total cost in case of cancellation midway. Exhibit B 32 also provides for similar conditions at E and F. It should not be forgotten that the booking application form submitted by the complainant himself. The complainant himself filed and addressed by him to opposite party stating that he would be cancelling his booking pursuant to the discussions and decisions taken in the open house organized by the opposite party on 21.02.2009. So there cannot be any doubt that the complainant, as member of Synergy Society booked for the plot and also cancelled it pursuant to the decision taken in the open meeting dated 21.02.2009. Exhibits B 4 to B 29 discloses that there were genuine and honest approaches by the opposite party to take permission of the concerned officials for approval and commencement of the project. So it cannot be said that the opposite party was deficient in its services. In fact they paid crores of rupees to the GHMC and other authorities towards sanction and permission in order to secure to great the approval for commencement of the work. The Synergy Welfare Association addressed a letter to the opposite party subsequent to open house decision taken on 21.02.2009. There was the agreement of reduction of the sale price and for forgoing of Rs.1,00,000/ - in case of cancellation of the bookings besides extension of time for completion of the project. When the complainant addressed letter pursuant to the decision taken in the open house for cancellation of the booking, the opposite party issued reply stating that the cheque for payment of the balance amount after deduction was made ready and the complainant was required to collect the same. Instead of taking the cheque, he issued notice which was replied. The opposite party also filed the list of members who opted for refund after forfeiture of the agreed amount. The opposite party also filed documents showing the payment of crores of rupees to the GHMC and other authorities towards necessary fees and charges. So in view of the understanding and agreement, the complainant would be entitled for refund of only Rs.1,00,000/ - and not more than that as he cancelled the booking. As already noted, the complainant suppressed all those details and in fact we cannot grant any relief for suppression of material facts. However, since that the opposite party magnanimously and liberally agreed to refund Rs.1,00,000/ - even though they met with the expenditure of crores of rupees, we feel it proper to order refund of only Rs.1,00,000/ -.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to refund only Rs.1,00,000/ -."

DISSATISFIED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission noted as under: "Clause 12.1 and 12.2 of the MOU prescribe the amount to be forfeited in case the members of the society opt for cancellation. 12.1 and 12.2 of the memorandum of understanding reads as under:

12.1 - One lakh of the initial booking advance shall be forfeited in case the applicant intends to cancel/ withdraw from the booking within one month from the date of acceptance of application. 12.2 - In case of cancellation of midway through the construction process, 10% of the total cost of the apartment shall be forfeited towards cancellation charges. A combined reading of the aforementioned clauses would make it clear that a member has to forego Rs.1,00,000/ - of the initial booking advance in case he intends to cancel the agreement within one month and 10% of the total cost of apartment if he chooses midway, i.e., after the period of one month from the date of acceptance of application. It is not disputed that the respondent company had not obtained the layout approval and failed to construct the apartment as per the time schedule or even beyond the stipulated period. The respondent agreed to refund Rs.1,00,000/ - out of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/ - paid by the appellant on the premise that all the other members of the society including the appellant agreed to forego Rs.1,00,000/ - in view of recession and as they lost their jobs. The learned counsel for the appellant had strenuously contended that the appellant had not admitted that he lost his job nor did he consent for forfeiture of Rs.1,00,000/ - from the amount paid by the appellant. He has submitted that brochure is part of the agreement and the respondent company had failed to carry out its obligation in terms of the promise made in the brochure and the agreement. The respondent company had contended that the Synergy society addressed letter dated 30.03.2009 stating that the representative of the respondent company assured the society that the members of the society who applied for cancellation before 23.02.2009 would be considered for processing request for deducting Rs.1,00,000/ -. The letter does not contain any recital as to acceptance of forfeiture of Rs.1,00,000/ - by members of the society in case they opt for cancellation before 23.02.2009. The respondent company failed to keep its promise in obtaining layout approval, completing the construction of the building or providing amenities therefor. The Hon''ble Supreme Court and the National Commission held that issuing brochure with promise of providing the amenities within the time schedule approval of layout within the prescribed period would constitute deficiency in service on the part of the respondent company. The respondent company having rendered deficient service cannot contend that it is entitled to deduct the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ - in terms of the MOU. Both parties are obligated to perform their part of the contract and the respondent company failed to carry out its part of contract. The appellant was made to pay the initial amount for purchase of the flat on the promise of the respondent company as to the layout, construction of the flat and provision of amenities. The appellant had been subjected to harassment owing to the attitude of the respondent company and he was deprived of the amount paid by him for a considerable period and even after the appellant expressed its intention to cancel the agreement, the respondent company has not come forward to pay the entire amount citing the clauses in the MOU and the letter issued by the welfare association. Taking into consideration of totality of circumstances, we are inclined to award an amount of Rs.40,000/ - towards compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the respondent to refund an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ - as directed by the District Forum and pay a sum of Rs.40,000/ - towards compensation as also Rs.5,000/ - towards costs".

HENCE , the present revision petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the State Commission has committed illegality in not ordering refund of Rs.2.00 lakh. He stated that the respondent had violated the terms and conditions of clause 13 of the MOU by not obtaining GHMC approval within six months from the date of submissions and once, the respondent had violated the terms and conditions the contract becomes null and void. Hence, the following terms and conditions as intimated when he had booked the flat also become null and void. Clause ''e'' of the terms and conditions is reproduced as under: "e - Rs.1.00 lakh of the initial booking advance shall be forfeited in case of cancellation / withdrawal from booking within one month from the date of acceptance of the application".

HENCE he has argued that the entire amount of Rs.2.00 lakh should have been refunded to him with interest and compensation.

THE learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has stated that there was no privity of contract directly between the petitioner and the respondent. MOU had been signed by M/s Synergy Welfare Association a Society registered with Registration no. 1865 of 2007 to purchase land/ flats for its members. The petitioner had been authorized by the said Society vide authorization letter no. 03.03.2008 to book the apartment as per the MOU executed between M/s Aparna Constructions and Estates Private Limited and M/s Synergy Welfare Association Society on 14.02.2008 as he was one of the beneficiary of M/s Synergy Welfare Association and has sold 440 flats. Counsel for the respondent has also stated that the respondents had applied for GHMC approval on 24.04.2008 but due to various changes in the buildings rules governing for high rise buildings the approval was delayed and the final approval was given only on 18.06.2009. The society had been kept informed, in fact on 21.02.2009, a meeting had been held with all the members of the society, wherein the petitioner was also present, (the fact was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner), wherein various issues were discussed. The GHMC approval had also been discussed. As per the minutes of the meeting recorded with regard to GHMC approval and the schedule of completion, the minutes read that "he informed that the project would be delivered by June 2010 as against the initial target of March 2010. However, the grace period for any delay now is 90 days from June 2010 as compared to 180 days as against the delivery schedule of March 2010. Any delay beyond September 2010 would attract penalty to the builder".

AT the same meeting price revision issue was also discussed, it was recorded in the minutes therein that "despite all assurances, it transpired that few members are not comfortable with the existing price of Rs.2850/ - per sft (inclusive of amenities, service charges and VAT) due to their mounting financial obligations in the recessionary period, and want to exit from the venture. The procedure for exit from the venture was discussed. Mr Prasad informed that for those who send their cancellation request by Monday, i.e., 23.02.2009, their request would be processed by 31.03.2009 after deducting the penalty of Rs.1.00 lakh. They need to send the cancellation request by e -mail".

LEARNED counsel for the respondent has stated that the petitioner had sent his first e -mail letter of exit on 22.01.2009 wherein he has categorically stated as under: "I will be exiting this project. Please let me know the process for exit and the plan for returning the initial amount".

THEREAFTER , after the meeting held on 21.02.2009 with the Members of the Society, the petitioner had sent another e -mail letter dated 24.02.2009 regarding cancellation of flat no.504, Block ''A'' in Cyber Commune which read as under: "As discussed and decided in the "Open House'' is organized by Aparna on 21.02.2009, I am again send a mail for that I am cancelling from the project ''Cyber Commune''. (See Cancellation mail dated 22.01.2009) Please return the amount by 1st March 2009".

THE respondent had promptly replied vide letter dated 01.04.2009 wherein the respondent had informed the petitioner that his cancellation request has been processed and that the cheque for the balance amount after deducting the amount may be collected from the Corporate Office by bringing the original receipt and in case it was not possible to visit their office, the petitioner could send the original receipt by post and the cheque would be send by Registered Post. Thereafter instead of doing the same the petitioner had issued legal notice to the respondent dated 15.04.2009, wherein he denied refunding of Rs.2.00 lakh with interest @ 12%. The respondent has replied in detail and has stated as under: "You have sent another e -mail dated 24.02.2009 relying on the discussions and decisions taken in the open house organized on 21.02.2009 and requested for the cancellation. Accepting your request, we have sent a reply dated 01.04.2009 through e -mail informing you that your request for cancellation was processed and your cheque for the balance amount is ready and the same may be collected from our corporate office by bringing the original receipt. We have also informed you that if the original receipt is sent by post, we will send the cheque by registered post. Thereafter, surprisingly, we have received your e -mail dated 15.04.2009 signed by your father as an advocate falsely alleging that we have committed willful default in obtaining the approval from the GHMC within the stipulated period for the project and thereby, in lawfully constructing and delivering the flat and that on such breach, the contract stand cancelled. We deny the allegations made in the said notice. We have applied for the permission for the construction and that was already granted by the competent authority. We have applied for permission to the GHMC, which was duly processed and we have also received a communication from them and we have not committed any breach as alleged by you. You have availed the exit facility as per the booking form signed by you and as per the understanding arrived at during the meeting dated 21.02.2009 to which you are also a party. Therefore, your allegations of breach of contract are all false, motivated and an after -thought, invented only for purposes of your notice. You are not entitled for refund of Rs.2.00 lakh with interest as alleged".

IT was also seen from the record that 149 members had opted for withdrawal from the project as per the terms and conditions of agreement in the meeting held on 21.02.2009.

IT is an undisputed fact that the MOU was entered between the petitioner and the respondent and M/s Synergy Welfare Association Society of which the petitioner was a member. Petitioner was allotted a membership and a flat in the said Society. Thereafter on 22.01.2009 he had addressed a letter stating that he wanted to exit from the project and asked refund of the amount deposited. It is also an undisputed fact that in the meeting held on 21.02.2009, wherein he was also present the procedure for exit was discussed and agreed upon. The petitioner has thereafter on 24.02.2009 exercised his option to withdraw from the project on the terms and conditions decided upon in the said meeting. The respondent was willing to refund Rs.1.00 lakh but the petitioner did not make any attempt the collect the same and filed a consumer complaint.

THE District Forum and the State Commission have given due weightage to clause 12.1 and 12.2 of MOU and both the Fora below have ordered refund of Rs.1.00 lakh. The State Commission has rightly awarded Rs.40,000/ - as compensation as the petitioner was subjected to harassment owing to the attitude of the respondent company and as he was deprived of the amount paid by him for a considerable period and Rs.5,000/ - towards cost.

IN view of the above, there is nothing on record to support the petitioner''s contention that the State Commission had meant to order refund of Rs.2 lakh but due to a typographical error omitted to record the words "in addition to Rs.1,00,000/ - in the last paragraph (21) of the order".

THE Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 3 Scale 654 has observed: "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."

IN view of the above, I find that there is, no jurisdictional or legal error or misrepresentation of facts have been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed with no order as to cost.