1. The present Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 17-11-2019, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) whereby the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner herein has been disposed of with certain directions. 2. We have heard Mr. Arjun Prasad Sinha, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the Respondents. Even on the previous occasions, nobody had appeared on behalf of the Respondents and vide order dated 31-05-2016, the Respondents herein were directed to be proceeded against ex parte. 3. We have also perused the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had paid an excess amount of Rs.13,00,680/- in Account No.1 and, therefore, the said amount was adjusted in Account No.10 which is related to Family Pension Fund Scheme/Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. 4. On a query being made as to how and under what provisions of law, this amount of Rs.13,00,680/- was adjusted by the Petitioner towards amount of interest paid by it, the submission was that the amount of simple interest was to be paid whereas the Petitioner had paid the interest as per the directions of Central Board of Trustees of EPF Organisation. 5. We find from the orders passed by both the Learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan as also from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no direction for payment of simple interest. If there is no direction in the orders passed by the High Court and the Apex Court regarding payment of simple interest, the normal procedure is that the Petitioner is required to pay the amount of interest which is declared every year and credited to the Account of the subscriber. Thus, the adjustment of Rs.13,00680/- made by the Petitioner on account of alleged excess payment of interest cannot be accepted. The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, does not suffer from any irregularity or legal infirmity which may warrant interference in our Revisional jurisdiction. 6. The Revision Petitions fail and the same are dismissed. | 
