ORDERReview application was listed in Chamber, it was taken up in Bench. Learned counsel for the appellants/review applicant was heard. The review application and the record were perused. Para 4 of the review application is erroneous, misconceived, mischievous; and is dismissed. The daily order dated 3.7.2018 and para 36 of the reasoned judgment pronounced on 26.7.2018 stand as they stood. The reasoned judgment dated 26.07.2018 is clear and self-speaking. We find no reason on facts or law to in any manner clarify or modify or review the said reasoned judgment dated 26.07.2018. The review application is dismissed. Further, in our view, it is pertinent to note para 31 and para 36(vii) of the reasoned judgment dated 26.07.2018: Para 31 : 31. And consumer justice in the true sense has to be met. The principal amount has to be refunded in full by the builder co. without deduction etc. The liability created for the consumer qua bank/financial institution for the duration the loan amount was lying with the builder co. has to be fully met by the builder co. An appropriate rate of interest, drawing from logical objective criteria capable of being applied to the case, has to be ensured for the complainant’s contribution from self or other sources and has to be met by the builder co. Equitable and just compensation, and equitable and just cost of litigation, have to be met by the builder co. Once the afore are adjudicated and determined, the onus is on the builder co. to be dutiful in making the necessary payments within the stipulated time. Creating yet further harassment, uncertainty and difficulty for the consumer by delaying payments or making reduced payments etc. (if the adjudication is not stayed or quashed or modified by a higher authority / court) will be an unacceptable situation, to be viewed seriously – the harassment, uncertainty and difficulty of the consumer should end promptly and fully, the chapter should close. Therefore, if the builder co. delays the adjudicated payments beyond the time stipulated, it would and should attract higher / penal interest and other compensation / costs. Para 36(vii): 36(vii). If the payments to be made by the appellants to the respondent are delayed beyond the stipulated period, it would attract higher/penal interest and other compensation/costs (which would be determined by this Commission in the facts and specificities of that contingency if it so arises.) The appellants/review applicant could not confirm that complete payment within the stipulated time period, as ordered by this Commission vide para 36 of its reasoned judgment dated 26.07.2018, has been made to the respondent/complainant. It is noted that the stipulated time period has expired. Para 36(vii) will stand as it stood. Furthermore, in case of non-compliance of para 36 (ii) to (vi), the State Commission shall proceed for execution as per the law, both for enforcement under section 25 and for imposition of penalty under section 27 of the Act 1986. In addition, the appellants/builder co. are (again) directed to file a report-in-compliance with copy to the respondent/complainant as ordered by this Commission vide para 38 of its reasoned judgment dated 26.07.2018. The Registry is directed to send a copy each of this Order to the State Commission and to the respondent/complainant within one week. ‘Dasti’ in addition. | 
