ORDER : The delay of 37 days in filing the special leave petition is condoned. 2. The respondent, who had in May, 2006 booked a flat in the tower being constructed on NH-24, Ghaziabad and paid various instalments, filed Complaint No.606 of 2010 for refund of the amount of Rs. 7/- lakhs with interest and payment of compensation for mental agony and harassment by alleging that the petitioner had failed to make allotment within the stipulated time. The petitioner contested the complaint and pleaded that the provisional allotment made in favour of the respondent was cancelled due to non-payment of instalments despite reminders. 3. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Government of NCT of Delhi (for short, 'the District Forum') allowed the complaint and held that the petitioner's failure to construct the flat within the stipulated time amounted to deficiency in service. The District Forum directed the petitioner to refund Rs.7/- lakhs to the respondent with interest at the rate of 10% from the date of deposit till the date of realisation and also awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 4. The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (for short, 'the State Commission') and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the National Commission'), respectively. Both, the State Commission and the National Commission concurred with the District Forum that the petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service. The review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the National Commission. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In our view, the concurrent finding recorded by the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission that there was deficiency in service on the petitioner's part is based on correct analysis of the facts and refusal of the National Commission to exercise revisional power for setting aside the concurrent orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission cannot be termed as erroneous. Rather, the view taken by the National Commission is consistent with the law laid down by this Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) SCALE 654 : 2011(2) CPC 378 S.C. 7. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. 8. Rather, the view taken by the National Commission is consistent with the law laid down by this Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) SCALE 654 : 2011(2) CPC 378 S.C. 7. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. 8. The petitioner is directed to implement the order passed by the District Forum and pay the entire amount due to the respondent within a period of four weeks. The amount of cost awarded by the National Commission shall also be paid within that period. A report showing compliance of this order shall be filed in the District Forum within a period of six weeks. If it is found that the petitioner has not acted in consonance with this order, then the District Forum shall initiate proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and pass appropriate order. Petition dismissed.