We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant. Mr. Amit Kumar Jawalkar, learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that the impugned order holding the petitioner guilty of defect or deficiency in service cannot be legally upheld. However, he submits that the respondent-complainant is a poor farmer and has suffered during the year, as he could not get the expected yield of cotton. He prays that the complainant would be satisfied if he is allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the petitioner in the District forum for which, Ms. Usha Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection if the present petitioner is allowed. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the material obtaining on record and the concession made from the side of the respondent-complainant, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the fora below. However, we direct that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the petitioner shall be -3- disbursed to the respondent. We make it clear that this order will not constitute precedent. The revision petition is allowed in above terms.