This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sudha Bala Sharma & anr. against the order dated 02.05.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.458 of 2015.

2.      Opposite parties initiated proceedings before competent Authority under Sec 55 of the M P Grih Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 & as per proceedings of the Authority the possession of the house was taken back by the Housing Board on 8.1.2002 because after the execution of agreement & handing over the possession complainant did not pay the remaining amount.  Complainant filed a complaint alleging that the house constructed by opposite parties suffered from many defects & the agreement was unilateral & arbitrary.     Complainant in the prayer claimed for refund of Rs.1,21,645/- with interest, Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation & Rs.10,220/- towards cost.

3.      District Forum allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties to pay Rs.1,11,645/- with interest @ 6% p.a.  Being aggrieved by the said order both parties filed appeals before the State Commission. State Commission disposed of both the appeals modifying the order of District Forum with direction to opposite parties to return Rs.1,21,645/- with interest @ 9% p.a. Complainant against the said order preferred revision petition wherein National Commission affirmed the order passed by State Commission along with additional token compensation of Rs.1,000/-.

4.      In execution filed by the complainant before District Forum, opposite parties paid a sum of Rs.1,21,645/- with interest amounting to Rs.31,764/- on 7.5.2008 of which receipt was taken on the order sheet itself. However, the amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded by National Commission was not paid. Complainant requested District Forum on 27.10.2008 that the amount of 55,823 deposited by opposite parties for purpose of filing appeal as a pre-deposit be paid to the complainant.

5.      The District Forum paid the said amount to complainant on 27.10.2008 subject to condition that if it is found that excess amount has been paid to complainant, complainant shall be liable to refund the same.

6.      In the aforesaid execution, opposite parties filed an application on 18.12.2012 for refund of the amount of Rs.55,823/- deposited by them as pre-deposit for appeal. District Forum after hearing counsel for parties held that opposite parties had already paid a sum of Rs.1,21,645/- with 9% interest & in compliance of order of National Commission, opposite parties had yet to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation. District Forum directed complainant to refund Rs.55,283 - Rs.1000/- = Rs.54,823/- to opposite parties which were received in excess.

7.      Complainant filed appeal against the said order which was dismissed by State Commission.  Now, revision petition has been filed by complainant.

8.      Though revision petition has been filed by the complainants/petitioners, it seems that the petitioners are not taking interest as he has been absent on two consecutive dates.  From the facts narrated above, it would be clear that amount awarded in the final order passed by this Commission has been paid to the complainants and the petitioner had wrongly received Rs.54,823/- from the District Forum, which was deposited by the opposite parties.  The District Forum has now ordered the refund of Rs.54,823/- from the complainant.  Against that order, the appeal was filed by the complainants before the State Commission.  The appeal has also been dismissed.  The State Commission observed the following:-

“11.   In such circumstances, in view of the above discussion we find that when the appellants have already received a sum of Rs.1,21,645/- with interest @9% from 13.06.2005 till 06.05.2008 (the date of payment) i.e. Rs.31,764/- total Rs.1,53,409/- through cheque no.059588 dated 06.05.2008 on 07.05.2008 before the Forum, they are only entitled to receive further Rs.1000/- in compliance of order of the National Commission and they are bound to rerun Rs.54,823/- which comes after deduction of Rs.1000/- from Rs.55,823/- which they have received in excess, to respondent housing board.  The District Forum has now where erred in directing them to do so.  We do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.  In absence of any appeal filed by the respondent housing board we are restrained to award any interest to housing board on the said amount which received in excess by the appellants and enjoyed for a period of more than 9 years.

12.    In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.  The order of the District Forum is affirmed.”

9.      From the above, it is clear that both the fora below have given decision that an amount of Rs.54,823/- which was paid excess to the complainants, the complainants need to return the same as the total awarded amount along with interest has already been received by the complainants before the District Forum.  Thus, I do not find any merit in the revision petition.  RP No.1386 of 2017 is accordingly dismissed.