ORDER Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member—The present Revision Petition is filed by M/s. Indraprastha Welfare Society against the order dated 8.12.2004 of the Karnataka State Commission in Appeal No. 353 of 2004 whereby the State Commission dismissed the said appeal of the Petitioner. Brief facts of the case are: The Respondent/ Complainant, Shri H.S. Venkateshmurthy is a member of the society of the Petitioner, M/s. Indraprashtra Society to whom he paid a sum of Rs. 46,472/- towards the cost of the site measuring 40' x 60' and also a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as service charges. 2. The petitioner assured its members from the year 1986 that they will obtain sites in bulk from Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society and then allot the same to them. From the past 18 years the same assurances were given with regard to allotment of sites and nothing has been done. The Respondent filed a complaint in additional District Forum, Bangalore claiming the refund of the said amount. In his complaint he prayed for directing Petitioner to allot him a site or as an alternative to pay present market value of the said site. It is the case of the Petitioner that he has paid the entire amount to the Vyalikaval Society and the said society neither refunded the said amount nor allotted the site in their favour and hence they were not in a position to refund the amount or allot the site. 3. The District Forum by its order dated 4.12.2003 allowed the complaint filed by the Respondent and directed the Petitioner society to pay this amount of Rs. 46,472/- to the Respondent with interest @ 10% p.a. on the same from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment with cost at Rs. 1,000/- within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. 4. The State Commission by its order dated 8.12.2004 dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner Society. Both the Fora below held that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner in not allotting the site as promised and that the Respondent is not concerned with the acts done by the Petitioner with regard to spending of money and acquisition of lands. It is an internal arrangement between them and Vyalikaval Society. Both the Fora below held that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner in not allotting the site as promised and that the Respondent is not concerned with the acts done by the Petitioner with regard to spending of money and acquisition of lands. It is an internal arrangement between them and Vyalikaval Society. We agree with the contentions of the respondent that the agreement between the petitioner and Vyalikaval Society is not their concern. The letter of the petitioner dated 4.10.2002 requesting the respondent not to misunderstand the delay and the assurance that the layout work of 120 acres in Nagawara village would commence soon confirm the earlier commitment made and proves deficiency in service on their part. 5. After perusing the record, we find that there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. Hence, State Commission’s order is confirmed. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Revision Petition dismissed. –––