(1.) The petitioner/OP has come in revision against concurrent findings of two Fora below. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The main grievance of the complainant is found in paragraph 3 of the complaint, which reads as under:
(3.) There was no specific denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 3, in the written statement filed by the petitioner/OP, which is at page 71 of the record. In parawise reply, the OP has simply denied paragraph 3 of the complaint and has mentioned the compass system followed by it. The averments contained in paragraph 3 of the complaint were reiterated in affidavit evidence of the complainant. In the affidavit evidence filed on behalf of the OP, again there was no specific denial of the allegations made in paragraph 3 of the complaint. Fora below have accepted the version of the complainant and have awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000 as also a sum of Rs. 10,000 as litigation cost. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the findings of the Fora below do not call for any interference either on merits of deficiency in service or on the award of compensation and cost. Accordingly, the Complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner in this revision as also the amount deposited in the State Commission.