JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. Heard on the question of admission. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by the J and K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”). In order to appreciate the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention which are stated infra. 3. The respondent No.2 floated TOCDS shares in the month of August, 1993. The appellant applied for allotment of 200 TOCDS shares under the aforesaid scheme and made a payment of Rs.1,500/- to respondent No.2. On 16.12.1993, however, 100 TOCDS shares were allotted in favour of the petitioner and an amount of Rs.1,500/- was adjusted which was treated as application amount. A demand of further amount of Rs.2,500/- was also made. The petitioner remitted the amount through the respondent’s bankers namely Indian Bank (IB), Bombay which was received by the respondent No.2 on 28.01.1994. The Indian Bank did not respond for about six and half months and finally by an communication dated 28.06.1994 informed the petitioner that his Cheque for Rs.2,500/- was not accepted. Thereupon the petitioner forwarded the amount of Rs.2750/- by way of Demand Draft on 13.10.1994 which included the amount of Rs.250/- on account of delayed payment. However, the shares were not allotted to him. The petitioner by an communication dated 28.01.2000 was informed that the amount which is being quoted by him as “First Call Money” was in fact the allotment money. It is the case of the petitioner that in all he has paid a total sum of Rs.11,500/-. However, the shares were not allotted to him. 4. Thereupon the petitioner approached the District Form and claimed a sum of Rs.4.50 lakhs by way of compensation. The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Form vide award dated 19.05.2010 awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- along with interest @ 8 per cent per annum and also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses besides directing a refund of Rs.1,000/- along with interest @ 8 per cent. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commission. The Commission, inter alia held that the appellant is a consumer and non allotment of 100 shares amounts to act of acute deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Accordingly, the order passed by the District Consumer Forum was modified and respondent Nos. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commission. The Commission, inter alia held that the appellant is a consumer and non allotment of 100 shares amounts to act of acute deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Accordingly, the order passed by the District Consumer Forum was modified and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages for harassment, mental agony and for unnecessarily delaying the genuine claim of the petitioner. The litigation expenses were enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was disposed of. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount awarded by the Commission is paltry and in fact the entire amount of compensation as claimed by the petitioner ought to have been awarded to him. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to show as to the loss suffered by him on account of non allotment of 100 shares in timely manner by respondent No.2. When a query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard, he submitted that the matter be remanded to the District Forum and he be granted the liberty to adduce evidence in this regard. 7. The complaint was filed by the petitioner on 16.08.2000 before the District Consumer Forum. The burden to prove the loss on account of non allotment of the shares in timely manner was on the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have adduced the evidence in this regard. We are not inclined to remit the matter at this point of time specially after a long lapse of 17 years in order to enable the fresh round of litigation in view of principle of finality of the litigation as well as taking into account the fact that the petitioner should not be allowed to take advantage of his own lapse and inadvertence on his part. 8. 8. In view of the preceding analysis, the order passed by the Commission neither suffers from jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the fact of record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Section 103 of the J & K State Constitution, which even otherwise is discretionary in nature. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.