The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein has been dismissed. 2. Office has reported a delay of 113 days in filing the present Revision Petition. IA/19171/2019 has been filed by the Petitioners seeking condonation of delay. Heard Mr. N.K. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the averments made in the Application seeking condonation of delay. The cause shown is sufficient. The delay is condoned and the Revision Petition is treated to having been filed within limitation. The Application is allowed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the Application Form the Complainant/ Respondent had given two addresses, one was permanent address and other one was temporary address and therefore intimation was sent on the permanent address. 4. It is not in dispute that on 07.11.2013, the Complainant/ Respondent had informed the Petitioner herein about the change of address on which all the communication or information should be given. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even if there is a change of address, Petitioner is not bound or obligated to send the information on the changed address. This submission is wholly misconceived. The situation may arise, wherein the Applicant/ Allottee may mention a particular address in the Application Form as permanent but subsequently on account of some reasons the Applicant/ Allottee has to change the address and informed the change of address to the Petitioner. It is the duty of the Petitioner to send the information on the changed address. That having not been done, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum and the State Commission are perfectly justified in directing the refund of the amount along with interest, compensation and cost. 6. The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. | 
