Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.12.09 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ‘the State Commission) in First Appeal No.2221/06. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 21.08.06 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna in complaint case no.214/04. By that order, the District ..2.. Forum had partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner dealer of the tractor in not delivering the tractor trolley despite having received the consideration for the same. The District Forum had directed the petitioner herein to deliver the tractor trolley to the complainant on receipt of the balance amount of Rs.9,800/-. The District Forum had also awarded Rs.8,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the concurrent finding reached by the Fora below, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Fora below which calls for our interference in revisional jurisdiction u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is dismissed. However, time for compliance of the orders passed by the Fora below is extended by four weeks from today.